I made the title that because it was the part of the article I was most interested in.

I changed the title to "Apple won't bid on 'South Park' streaming rights fearing controversy and China" in order to better reflect that Apple doesn't want to hurt its brand with controversial programming, as you mentioned. I would rather make the title "Apple won't bid on 'South Park' streaming rights fearing controversial programming that could hurt its brand and China," but that doesn't fit withing HN's length limit.

Edit: Apple has a history in cooperating with China's censorship, so it's not much of a stretch. If so, Apple wouldn't say that's the reason they didn't bid, for obvious reasons.

Edit: I know that South Park's controversial/adult nature could be a factor in their decision. It says that in the article, and it's why I decided to change the title to include that.

Edit: Alright, I suppose I am in the wrong here. I'll change the title to more closely match the original article.

But you've completely misrepresented the facts.

Apple isn't specifically turning down South Park because of controversy/China. They never said why and to be honest it could be just as simple as it doesn't fit in with the rest of AppleTV+. Which IMHO it really doesn't.

Don’t editorialize is an explicit guideline: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Edit: you get an upvote for being a cool dude/ette about it.

Cherry-picking one detail from an article is editorializing. If you want to say what you think is important in an article, please do so not in the title but in a comment, where your view is on a level playing field with everyone else's. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...

It ludicrous to think that Apple would be interested in streaming South Park under any circumstances. You might as well ask Nickelodeon to do it.