Ask HN: how many points do I need to be able to censor others people's headlines?

[rugger]

My recent submission had a headline 'BBC fired respected scientist for denying man-made climate change'. It was censored by unknown editor to 'BBC ignored botanist for denying man-made climate change'.

The headline was not the best. It should have read 'banned' instead of 'fired', however anyone who has fired his lawyer would not be splitting hairs over the choice of words. The essence of the matter was clear to anyone.

What amazes me is why people attack the choice of words or the messenger (a tabloid in this case) when they should be arguing with the article itself?

So how many points should I get on HN before I can go around amending other people headlines to suit my religious beliefs?

[qhoxie]

It does not have to do with points. HN moderators can change titles.

They only change titles when they are inaccurate or misleading. That was clearly the least of the problems with the story considering it has been deaded.

[rugger → qhoxie]

why?

[qhoxie → rugger]

Not sure which point you are asking that to, but I'll guess...

The reason inaccurate and misleading titles are some times changed are because people do not want inaccurate or misleading titles.

[rugger → qhoxie]

No, I was not referring to the title. It was not be the best, but it was not misleading. Readers followed the link on the title, read the article and voted it up to the front page anyway.

Why to kill a front page thread with a lively discussion?

[qhoxie → rugger]

Users with sufficient karma flag problematic stories. It was the users that called it down.

[rugger → qhoxie]

I'm not going to bore you to death with my questions so please you do not have to answer.

However, I am puzzled what was problematic with that story apart from that it challenged certain consensus scientific views (which was the reason for submitting it on Hackers News).