Clickbait is about links to subpar/worthless content.
This is just a teasing/enticing title to well researched and detailed content.
Wikipedia re: clickbait:
"something designed to make readers want to click on a hyperlink, especially when the link leads to content of dubious value or interest" (...) "A more commonly used definition is a headline that intentionally over-promises and under-delivers."
Blog writers don't owe HN readers anything specific, nor are they beholden to them to give them the titles/content they like. Besides clickbait there is such a thing as wanting a nice title to grab the readers attention as opposed to some description that gives away your whole ruse inside the article (which is the point here).
>Even the readers of HN do not owe the blog writers anything, nor are they beholden to them to give them the votes/comments they like.
The difference being authors and posts can exist without caring about HN, but HN can't exist without content to link to. So I'd say the reverse is not true, except to individual authors. Authors dont owe HN anything, but HN does owe authors that make it to the frongpage something.
On the matter of clickbait, let's agree to disagree.
To me it's only "bait" if the result is the fish being hooked, taken out of the sea, killed and/or eaten - or, in this case, a person served BS and ads in exchange for their link clicking attention.
If the fisherman just tries to grab the fishes attention to feed it instead, and the fish even likes the food, it wouldn't be clickbait, or it wouldn't have the negative form. And same if a post author wants to use an attractive title (it's not as if all titles should be utilitarian description by decree).
Now, some decide to downvote a (IMO) good post, on the grounds they didn't like the title. I find that shallow. And I'm with the post authors on their right to give whatever title the want (but I don't agree with the readers right to complain about it when the content is good).
It's HN policy to not keep misleading titles. "Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait" [1]. Flagging things that do not meet it would seem reasonable to me.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25717156
It's the exact same article by the same author.