Re:Charity asked to pay just to link to newspaper websites
by gaius on Tuesday May 29, 2012 @07:18AM
(#4036910)
That it is a charity is neither here nor there - regardless of the linking issue (which, IMHO, is silly, the point of the web is linking!) that's an attempt by the writer to cloud the issue by making an appeal to emotion.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Charity asked to pay just to link to newspaper websites
by irishstu on Tuesday May 29, 2012 @07:25AM
(#4036922)
It's stupid behaviour to do it in the first place, and shitty behaviour to do it to a charity.
Re:Charity asked to pay just to link to newspaper websites
by ktizo on Tuesday May 29, 2012 @08:31AM
(#4037108)
The writer is mentioning the charity, because this case involves that charity. What do you suggest as an alternative?
You could remove all mention of charity for issues involving charities, just to make sure that no-one is being emotionally manipulated by the fact that charities exist, but then articles about things happening to charities would start to resemble redacted missives from some government ministry of truth.