It is in my opinion absolutely unacceptable that this submission was originally the article title and that was subsequently changed, presumably to defuse it. Someone needs to clarify when the norm of using the submission title applies, when it’s thrown out, why it’s thrown out, and who gets to decide.
In my opinion, the only sensible approach is for the title policy to be unilaterally enforced. Any departure from it will invariably involve someone’s subjective ‘political’ stance on a matter.
As it stands, it looks as if someone at Amazon applied pressure to have this changed. I really hope that isn’t the case because it’s almost too shady to be believed.
I agree with you to certain extent. I think the problem with titles directly out of the article is that many times they are bait.
The writers of those articles are purposefully leaving key information out, to grab people's attention and likely force them to read the entire article to find the missing information or fulfill the title entice.
In this case I think the change of title is definitely defusing the article, but it's also giving the key information that was left out in the bait title.
I agree with you because changing the original title feels like a disruption of the discourse and opens a bias door for whoever changes the title. But, I also believe that bait titles erode the quality of the content and make harder to consume and evaluate information. It's a hard problem.
I disagree almost entirely on the basis of that being a ludicrous sort of infantilization, as if this community can’t be trusted to sort fact from fiction and must instead be coddled towards the “correct” interpretation.
In my opinion, the only sensible approach is for the title policy to be unilaterally enforced. Any departure from it will invariably involve someone’s subjective ‘political’ stance on a matter.
As it stands, it looks as if someone at Amazon applied pressure to have this changed. I really hope that isn’t the case because it’s almost too shady to be believed.