I actually agree. We should hold HN posts to a standard of truthfulness, and perhaps this submission's headline does not meet that standard (irrespective of the contents of the screenshots).

But in supporting this argument, my question is then: What standards apply to whom? Are all opinion and thought pieces, given that they are not verifiable, and they are inherently trying to change the opinion of the reader, therefore conspiracy thinking? If not, what is the definition?

If conspiracy-thinking is the view that organisations are not operating in the best interests of the individual, one person's conspiracy-thinking is therefore another person's whistleblowing.

Thoughts?

I would define "conspiracy-thinking" as belief-forming that's driven by fear, even if its proposition can't be totally disproved (truthfully, nothing can). Or, if you like, belief-forming that neglects to apply Occam's Razor.

But that's an inherently subjective thing. So the only thing that's important in this case is the intentional propagation of false information.