I agree, but there's a big difference between such a title on /newest and the same title near the top of the front page. In the former case, it's a reason to skip over it; in the latter, it's a reason to dig further, and digging further is what HN is all about.

I'm not saying the current title is the perfect outcome—I'm just not sure what the perfect outcome is. I do think that in this case, the dystopian title adds to the quality of the post (but only once it's on the front page).

It's impossible to cover the general case with a simple rule. Even a paragraph of rules wouldn't be enough—people would discover corner case after corner case and you'd eventually need a book. I think HN's guideline covers the domain as well as any single sentence could; and then we can cover all the exceptions ad hoc, and talk about them in the comments.

It sounds 200% like newspeak and it’s pretty obvious what will be inside the egg.

> I know it's policy to use original titles, but the editorialization in this case hardly seems sensational.

It's interesting that the HackerNews guideline makes no statement about whether a custom headline is sensational or reasonable. It is: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." They probably have a slightly different reason for this rule than many people first imagine. And that reflects in the actual wording of the rule being slightly different than many people would first phrase it themselves.

Yeah, the point of the HN rule isn’t to prevent drawing attention to the post - it’s to put your comment on it at the same level as everyone else’s.

There's quite a bit of overlap between 'linkbait' and 'sensational', so I'd say that concept is in there.

If you want to make an overarching statement via the post title, the route is to write up your thoughts on the matter, title your post however you want, and then post that.