Not sure this would be fully editorializing, since the updated title (currently "Gitlab mandating third-party telemetry, locks out user access until accepted") is objectively factual and true.
The ToS was the only thing that had changed, telemetry had not been implemented yet. We've rolled the ToS changes back and are reconsidering our approach based on the feedback: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/growth/product/issues/164
It's a good thing you are reconsidering the approach, but I don't see how this is related to this "title subthread". At the time this subthread started, the title was "Gitlab mandating third-party telemetry, locks out user access until accepted" and these things were, in fact, true at that time. The fact that telemetry had not yet implemented did not change the fact that it was being mandated.
I would like to also note that my stance that the non-original title (at the time) was fine does not have anything to do with that title "looking bad" for GitLab. For example, the title now is "Gitlab ‘rethinking’ third-party telemetry", which is also not the original title, looks somewhat good for GitLab and I think it's fine.
Sorry for being unclear I wasn't trying to refute the accuracy of the title, only to provide additional context that was missed by us in the first place. I think if anything it's really not my place to have a say in what the title says.
It's a non-original title, but Wiktionary for example lists "presenting an opinion as fact" as a necessary requirement to call something "editorialized": https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/editorialize#English
I totally get where you're coming from, but the full sentence is:
> Otherwise [outside a set of very specific circumstances], please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.
I'm not sure what would count as "specific circumstances". One could argue though that the original title was "editorialized", since GitLab has an incentive to soften the blow of the news, especially since the original title doesn't tell much about the news itself (what is the important update)?
Well, I guess that would be open to interpretation - I don't get from the sentence that the "very specific circumstances" refer exclusively to the paragraphs above. Otherwise, they would have written "outside the circumstances mentioned above" or omitted the brackets entirely, IMO.
I believe they phrased it this way so some discretion can be exercised if the original title doesn't give the full context. Another example is the recent Tesla story - original title is "Q3 2019 Update", story title is "Tesla Q3 Financial Results". The HN story for when MS bought GitHub is "Microsoft acquires GitHub", while original title was "Microsoft + GitHub = Empowering Developers".
If there wasn't such a leeway, most acquisition stories would be titled "Our incredible journey".
As important as this is, the editorialization is quite clearly against HN guidelines.