zlacker

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+(OP)
> 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+(OP)
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+d1
Thanks for the info! I'll check it out.