Didn't mean to imply is isn't in the article. I came to commentary after seeing the headline. Usually on HN there is a comment that shows why the headline is misleading in some way.
It's an open secret that many people here don't read past the headline before commenting, but being open about it and proudly stating it is certainly... an interesting choice on your part.
The point is the article is burying the lede rather than upfront framing it in a different manner. It is easy to miss.
Edit: I am responding to the critique of a different person. I did read the article.
You can just admit you didn’t read the article.
I wasn’t the GP
I proudly admit I do not read the Guardian on principle.
Would you care to share those principles?
Wrapping a tiny bit of truth in innuendoes and click-bait titles with anti-corporate bent. Like for example this article. Free press and all, I guess.
Those are your principles?
Sorry, my post was confusing. Those are the principles of The Guardian. My principle is to avoid The Guardian.