The BBC publishes nothing but garbage and there are other extant sources that are more durable. It's fine to forget things. We're missing entire libraries of classical literature from great authors which would be nice to have. Missing documentary sewage isn't a tragedy.
This should show us that most of the web isn't worth preserving anyway, much like McDonald's burger wrappers aren't worth preserving like sacred artifacts. Most web and social media content is worth less than said greasy burger wrappers.
Reading one of the BBC's technical articles, a cyber security news item, they had 3 errors in the first paragraph. I didn't bother reading to the end of the article.
The BBC (News's) tech section isn't aimed at you. Inaccuracies shouldn't be there but often they will dumb down or gloss over stuff for the mainstream audience they are aiming at.
You notice it cos you are in tech, but the same happens in financial news, science and even sport. Go read a tech publication.
It has always been a constant of journalism that you read an article in your field and go "Wow, this is terrible, they got all of the details wrong". But then you turn around and trust the reporting on everything outside of your field of expertise.
I remember how calling the BBC garbage a few years ago got your comment heavily downvoted here. They'd tell you that they were the best thing since sliced bread and that they were good because both the left and the right hated them, as if that meant something. Now it seems everybody is recognising the BBC for what they are: utter shite.
A few years ago, any comment that didn't add new insight to a topic would get downvoted. I remember once reading a comment where the response was a quip, and someone replied "this response was funny but we don't want this site to become Reddit so I downvoted you".
I see this as a more general pattern on HN: Opinions not-yet-adopted by academia are often downvoted instead of being argued with. This stifles innovation because alternative opinions do not even show up in the casual reader's screen.
“Someone said it on Hacker News” carries no weight. Why should anyone take our comments seriously if they don’t recognize the username? I don’t see this as a bug.
Better to post links to trusted sources and let people judge for themselves.
Absent an explanation of why I've annoyed people, I get as much of a dopamine hit from downvotes as upvotes. I'd rather be polarising than forgettable.
Whenever I take an unpopular stance I remind myself of Rick Sanchez's wise words, "Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer".
Me too, I think a lot of my most upvoted comments are just truisms and preaching to the choir, whereas a lot of the more insightful things I've said quickly get greyed out.
This should show us that most of the web isn't worth preserving anyway, much like McDonald's burger wrappers aren't worth preserving like sacred artifacts. Most web and social media content is worth less than said greasy burger wrappers.