I'm happy to correct it if anyone suggests a better one. The intention is to find a neutral title that accurately reflects what the article itself is saying.
We've learned that when an article's original title generates complaints like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37137317, the thread is likely to get derailed by shallow arguing about the title. It's in both the author's interest and the community's for us to nip that in the bud by (1) putting an accurate and neutral title at the top (preferably using representative language from the article itself), and (2) marking the title complaint offtopic since it no longer applies. These steps nudge the thread toward discussing the article's content rather than merely its title.
Alright, sounds reasonable. I think the problem here is that the author specifically says (in a sibling comment) that the point is not Mastodon and now it's in the title. Maybe they're fine with it though.
I'm no expert and definitely get things wrong - we only skim things and make a first crack at an attempt, and then rely on other people to refine it. If Nathan or someone else wants to suggest a more accurate and neutral title, we can do that - the goal is simply to clear the discussion space for something more interesting than title fever (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). But now I'm repeating myself!
We've learned that when an article's original title generates complaints like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37137317, the thread is likely to get derailed by shallow arguing about the title. It's in both the author's interest and the community's for us to nip that in the bud by (1) putting an accurate and neutral title at the top (preferably using representative language from the article itself), and (2) marking the title complaint offtopic since it no longer applies. These steps nudge the thread toward discussing the article's content rather than merely its title.