I don't know if "blogspam" is fair. This article seems to contain a significant amount of original content that is not lifted/rewritten from elsewhere. The photos do seem to be taken from the AP article without acknowledgement, which is not ideal, but I guess that's for them to worry about.

Overall I think it's an interesting enough topic to warrant HN front page placement, and this is the most extensive article about it. We'd be happy to switch to a different source if someone can recommend a better one.

IMO the article reads like it was written by a high schooler trying to reach a page count. It has original content, but it rehashes the same points many times, is short on actual substance, and doesn't have a clear point.

I think it may be language thing but sure, we've switched it to the AP story.

While poking around on other pages from the same .en subdomain of TFA on archive.org, I found error pages from GTranslate (Google Translate?) which could explain the weird formatting and language issues.

I don't mean to disparage the site by calling it blogspam, but I do take your point. Thanks for your efforts and for your gentle nudging; I will seek to be more expressive and less judgemental.

Ironically the UX on Reuters and AP wasn’t hugely worse than the blogspam: * the text of the blogspam is pretty faithful to the AP article * Reuters had a fullscreen paywall * the AP had a floating video ad and an interstitial you have to click to get below the fold