1) Sensationalist headline. The headline is just plain wrong. Internet radio is not yet saved since no reforms have been made.
"However, the source said the big question right now is whether webcasters not part of the CRB hearing might still have to pay the rates set by the board, minus the minimum fees."
2) Incorrect news site. Some appear submit articles without thinking, "How much does this contribute to the startup community? Would I find this in Digg, Reddit, or PG's anything-news site? If so, is it better suited there?" Which wouldn't be such a big deal, but..
3) No downvoting articles. I think this is a good decision by Paul, at least for the time being, since it removes the incentive for people to form mobs. But if anyone disagrees with the frontpage-worthiness of an article or the quality of the headline there's nothing they can do about it. Which can be bad when coupled with..
4) 2 points to hit the front page. Do you think it's time to up it to 3 or 4? Looking at the 'new' page, a lot of articles with 2 points are DOA, whereas if it has 4 points it's much more likely to have at least one comment. I wonder if it would still have 4 if it required 3 to get to the front page.
The quality of the submissions and comments at News.YC are excellent, but I wonder if it's worth fighting to keep that peak performance. Whenever you dispute the quality of something that everyone's looking at people will get angry at you, and maybe the problem will just fix itself. But I feel that fighting to keep the quality level near-perfect is a good thing.
Old media passes rules with the help of the government in order to crush new media outlets. Users of new media outlets mobilize, and there's some temporary resolution.
How is that not relevant?
Another point worth making is that it seems that the philosophy taken with this site is that things that are obviously off topic (will it blend, articles about bush being a nazi, blatant spam, etc) are forbidden, and the community chooses what they find relevant from what's left.
Seems like a great policy to me, and it requires a lot less hands-on work.
It's only tangently relevant, and the headline is inaccurate.
That's not the (specific) point though. You and I can debate whether or not it's relevant 'til the cows come home. The problem is, if anyone disagrees that it is relevant, they have no way to express that except in comments, which is a costly affair that doesn't really change anyone's mind.
For example, you can argue that the other article that hit the front page, aptly titled "Google the Pimp Strikes Again with More Porn!", is also relevant to Startup News; after all, it's talking about Google, and Google was a startup. But if Joe thinks it's a waste of time, or even a detriment to the community, he has no choice but to ignore it (News.YC doesn't have a 'hide' feature) or comment on it, which throws him into the arms of anonymous downvoters.
"...the community chooses what they find relevant..."
Well, in theory. Back when the community was small, yeah. But right now, it only takes one other person to agree with you for your article to be featured front and center. Someone else thought that finding porn with random Google keywords with SafeSearch blatantly off was hilarious and relevant, but alas, not everything that's hilarious is Startup News worthy (Will it Blend, etc), and things that are only tangently relevant will probably find a happier home in Reddit.
