HN changes (and suggests submitters edit) submission titles generally if that edit will provoke a better discussion.
Sometimes that's removing or changing clickbait phrases. Sometimes it's clarifying or sharpening focus. Sometimes it's softening, blurring, or removing provocative language. And in every case I'm aware, they've commented on having made such edits.
It's a judgement call. I've edited numerous of my own submissions, often for length, occasionally in mind of discussion. I've emailed the mods, usually for clickbait (in the original) titles. Sometimes my edits are accepted, sometimes not.
But what's been done here isn't an exceptional practice. And given the already politicised nature of the topic at hand, for HN, I fully stand by dang's edit in this case.
(Would have commented earlier if I'd had a decent keyboard available.)
We edit titles to make them less favorable to companies too. The principle is to make titles more accurate and neutral. If you know of one where we did the opposite, I'd like to see the example.
Moderation rules invariably involve interpretation. That doesn't make them arbitrary.
I agree. There were times in the past where I thought dang was favoring YC companies (it's worth mentioning GitLab is a YC company), but in retrospect I think I was seeing it because I wanted to see it.
HN continues to surprise me as the best moderated community of substantial size anywhere on the internet, and this thread exemplifies why.
Thank you dang for making HN what it is today. I know I appreciate it, and I bet 99% of everybody else here does as well.
