My guess is because it was self-submitted, it was held to a higher standard. Fair enough.
And in some universes the title could be considered click bait, although it is accurate in this case.
Moderation is a tough job. You never win.
That said, the revised HN title seems like it was written by bad AI. The point seemed to be to drive it off the homepage. In that, the HN title succeeded.
Regardless, I'm happy the article generated a lot of interesting discussion before manually being deemed unfit.
It is curious how at the same time the title changed, all the top comments (which were generally supportive) got pushed to the bottom. And now, including yours. Assuming this article touched a nerve at the same time someone was having a bad day.
And in some universes the title could be considered click bait, although it is accurate in this case.
Moderation is a tough job. You never win.
That said, the revised HN title seems like it was written by bad AI. The point seemed to be to drive it off the homepage. In that, the HN title succeeded.
Regardless, I'm happy the article generated a lot of interesting discussion before manually being deemed unfit.
It is curious how at the same time the title changed, all the top comments (which were generally supportive) got pushed to the bottom. And now, including yours. Assuming this article touched a nerve at the same time someone was having a bad day.