zlacker

Hacker News discourages "editorializing" the title, which means there's incentive to repeat what's being linked to exactly.

Most of the time, it's a good thing, but in cases like this is where this falls over.

(You can also see this in the other direction parent comment, for what it's worth, "Jack Dorsey's New Twitter" isn't really accurate, as far as I'm concerned. It is more informative overall, though.)

>>stevek+(OP)
Describing or at least providing context is not editorializing. I don't know how this "discouragement" is phrased, but it should instead encourage (if not require) that titles mean something to a general audience (at least as represented by HN's users).

I am routinely down-modded and even banned for merely asking for more-descriptive titles. It's anti-user, anti-community, anti-usefulness, and douchey.

All we needed here was, at least, "Bluesky Social allows domain hijacking" or whatever it's actually doing (which I don't have a grasp of, even after following the cryptic link).

Or even just "This guy is now all of S3 on Bluesky Social." But that wouldn't be as click-baity, would it?

>>Shadow+mv
> Describing or at least providing context is not editorializing.

Absolutely. I'm not saying that I think that the title here is good. Just that I understand why it ended up as the title.

> I don't know how this "discouragement" is phrased,

You can find the guidelines here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

To quote the relevant part:

> Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.

That's it.

> (which I don't have a grasp of, even after following the cryptic link)

I described it over here, if you're still curious: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35820670

>>Shadow+mv
In this case, I agree something more descriptive would have been helpful. Even the comments have been mysterious, given the linked web site only returns "429 Too Many Requests".

>>stevek+zw
Thanks for the info! I'll check it out.