I don't normally agree with such editorial changes, but this one is really bad. Thanks.

Just to confirm, "this one" in your comment refers to the original article's title being "really bad"? (As opposed to the editorialized title.)

I think "this one" refers to the original article's title being really bad: "Blood money is fine with us, says GitLab: Vetting non-evil customers is 'time consuming, potentially distracting'"

Wow, finally read the site guidelines. "If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic." I always wondered why even the world's most important news events barely register on HN!

Because you can turn on your TV or go to a regular news site.

Hacker News is for subject matter that you would definitely not see in the regular.

Can you imagine? CNN newsflash: "Y-Combinator founder Paul Graham proposes new Lisp dialect."

I felt a sudden sense of longing and felt incredibly sad, as if I had forgotten something, something that had been precious to me.

Wow, glad they changed it, that is cringe inducing bad.

It's The Register. They're known for 'silly' headlines; it's their gimmick.

I'm kind of glad the Slashdot/Fark/Register era of Internet headlines seems to be over. Headlines trying to be funny rarely ever are.

Let's talk about how immoral it is to write headlines designed to spark controversy and outrage. Those who do so are disrupting our collective ability to discuss rationally about things- and they do it for profit- all the while posing as guardians of morality.

The Register's headlines have always been tongue in cheek, a dig at tabloids if anything.

Not sure where you are from, but maybe this kind of humour doesn't translate well to the US?

I'm sorry, I don't know the Register, so I might be misinterpreting the headline. And I see that many others on their homepage are similarly exaggerated.

However, unfortunately at this point I'm so used to headlines misrepresenting basic facts or taking quotes out of context to sell a political point or generate controversy, that the headline seemed perfectly plausible- my general point still stands, even if it doesn't apply to this particular case.

I can understand that if you're not familiar with them, but The Register literally predates click-bait - they've been doing satirical headlines for decades.

TheRegister really is the gutter press of the tech world.

I've come to believe that it's a bit more subtle than that.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21275051

Did you notice how the motto is "biting the hand that feeds IT", and the logo is the head of a scowling vulture? :)

It's a tedious schtick. Yet in this case there was also real reporting.

Yes, exactly this.

The article has an intentionally inflammatory title and is more opinion than journalism. It's not a good faith exploration of the topic.

Dang's editorialized title is.

I believe you and your parent are saying the same thing. (You can see this same discussion playing out in this same thread.)

You're 100% right. Wasn't clear to me from the first read but we are. Going to leave my comment up just for the elaboration on the theme...

If they no longer have that policy then it no longer passed the interesting-new-phenomenon test and almost all of the article is irrelevant.

I don't think I agree. For a tech company to officially say "don't discuss politics at work" is also a phenomenon I don't think we've seen before, and in the context of recent events/trends it seems significant.

> We've changed the title in accordance with the site guidelines

You've change it away from the story title, which is normally the site guideline isn't it?

The site guideline is "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait." Since Gitlab retracted that part of their policy, that part of the title became misleading. That's why I edited it. As always, we're open to suggestions for a better, i.e. more accurate and neutral, title.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

It wasn't misleading at the time that the article was written though, or even at the time that it was submitted. This article was posted here two hours ago, and the changes on the Gitlab repository were made an hour ago.

Is it now the policy of HN to keep titles up to date as events change?

We have the full context here. I appreciate the change dang made given this post is #1 on HN and about a tool (git) we all use.

Gitlab != git

Sure. We've always tried to do that. Actually we have to, because once a title becomes inaccurate, the thread will fill up with complaints about its inaccuracy until it's corrected. It's less important for stories not on the front page.

> Since Gitlab retracted that part of their policy,

Must have missed something - what was retracted?

The context is linked in the original comment edit now: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21275311

Thank you!

In other words, you did them a favor.

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.)

My job is to do HN a favor, such as by making sure the site guidelines apply.

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.

From where I'm sitting you do an unbelievably fantastic job dang and apply rules evenhandedly. Thank you.

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.

Dang would just delete this submission if he actually felt that way.

You literally are being dishonest.

It's a routine application of HN's rules. I'm happy to hear what you find objectionable, but you're going to have to be more specific if you want a specific response.