The title is not misleading since most companies will ban you if you do a chargeback. The thing to note here is that a chargeback was done against the Google Store and the Gmail account was banned.
My goal wasn't to editorialize, I just wanted to let people know that their Gmail account was at risk if they did a chargeback against any of Google's services. This was new information to me and a lot of people on this thread.
Why did you think that?
> My goal wasn't to editorialize, I just wanted to let people know that their Gmail account was at risk if they did a chargeback against any of Google's services. This was new information to me and a lot of people on this thread.
Sure, and I appreciate your good intention (it was new to me too). But if you want to say what you think is important about an article, you should do it by adding a comment to the thread. Then your view will be on a level playing field with everyone else's: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
In fact this title is doing all three things we ask people not to do: it's definitely editorialized, it's definitely linkbait (sensational/indignant), and it's arguably misleading because it's making a general claim while the linked article is the narration of (one side of) one example. Moreover, the linked article's own title doesn't claim to be something it's not. When the HN title is more linkbait, more misleading, and more editorialized than the corresponding Reddit title, that's probably a bad sign.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html