Dupes are not just for the exact same URL. This topic has gotten a lot of attention on the frontpage, and there's no significant new information in this article.
you seem to be protecting people from discussing what they want to discuss
in addition, I wrote 2 first comments asking people to focus on a deeper conversation
and my focus was both in my forcefully changed title and in my first article-like comment that what is actually happening is attacking web capabilities
the first 2 comments were mine, an article and an ask towards the community to discuss things on a higher level (tech, legal) and forget these emotional outbursts that I hate pwa and I just dont want you to install another browser and that oh I love my walled garden because peopel just can use Safari with its protections
even if my thread was also flooded with not too deep comments, I think shadow banning was uncalled for!
A submission getting comments isn't automatically a sign that it should be on the frontpage. Anything controversial or outrageous is likely to get a lot of comments any time it makes the frontpage. The really insidious part is that unlike the really interesting submissions which are one offs, these topics are being fed by a news cycle and a content treadmill, with a steady stream of new articles mostly rehashing the same information. So they tend to crowd
To use this article as an example, you say you want to see a higher level discussion about the legal and technical aspects. A proper legal review of Apple's DMA position vs. the actual regulation text would definitely be fascinating to read and new information we haven't already seen multiple times. I'd totally upvote that. Maybe there's even a chance that such an article would lead to the higher level discussion you ask for. But it doesn't feel like that's at all what the article is? There's no analysis, just an assertion that this breaks the spirit and the letter of the law.
(I don't know anything about the various grivances you listed. I was just replying to agust since they were under the false impression that dupes were only for exact submissions of the same article.)
Keep in mind the criterion for dupeage: has the story had significant attention yet? One can argue that this story was major enough that half an hour of front page time wasn't significant, even though the thread did get 100 comments.
The second submission, however, spent 16 hours on HN's front page and got over 800 comments. That clearly qualifies as the story having significant attention, meaning that it was both standard and correct to downweight the current submission. The only question is whether it should have been formally marked [dupe] or merely downweighted as a follow-up (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...), but we don't have precise rules around that.
not just the link was new from open web advocacy, I also posted actually a piece to try to have a more focused and deep conversation
so they changed my original title that was actually funny and to the point, marked as duplicate and so the writer of the article from open web advocacy and my article-like comment was shadow banned, thanks!
apparently my former title was too much for this site: "iPissed: Apple is after web capabilities to protect close-to-100B App Store Tax"
which was relating to the article (and you can read the title of the original article after clicking) but I did not like "kills web apps" because it is not true in my opinion, tries to kill web apps or fights against them or cripples them in the next iOS release...
it sounded too eternal and I think Apple will be forced by DMA to do the opposite
I really am curiouos why and who did my creativity bother?
I found guidelines not rules:
"Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize."
For me, "kill web apps" is misleading since we have to wait and see how the EU reacts. The original title is more of a clickbait.
I am not a power user of hacker news. I found a title to fill in and did my best.
Had I seen there a link to the guidelines or a text like: please use original title if possible, I would have done it. It is actually 1 minute "site engineering" to mention this on the submission page.
The title you submitted ("iPissed: Apple is after web capabilities to protect close to 100B App Store Tax") broke that guideline badly. It's standard moderation practice to revert titles when submitters do this. If you felt the original title was misleading, then it would have been correct to change it, but definitely not by editorializing and making it more baity. On HN, being the submitter of an article doesn't confer any special rights over the title—I know other forums work differently, but this is an important point to understand about this one.
It's also standard moderation practice to downweight follow-up stories when a major ongoing topic has already had significant discussion recently, as this one has. We can argue about whether or not the story should have been formally marked a [dupe], but the basic moderation call to downweight it as a follow-up thread was, again, the standard one. Otherwise HN's front page would routinely be filled with follow-up discussions of the same few topics—whichever ones are most controversial that week—and that is not the site we're trying to have here.
It's not a problem, of course, that you were inexperienced with how HN works and broke the rules by accident. HN can be a cryptic place and it can take a while to get oriented. What's not fine, though, is posting indignant comments complaining about how you've been mistreated by what is in fact ordinary practice. Such meta drama is off-topic in the threads and has a way of taking over discussion if allowed to, so please don't do it again.
You're welcome on HN! Just please make sure not to post in the flamewar style to HN threads. Again, I know other forums work differently, but we're trying for thoughtful, curious conversation here, and flamewar destroys that, so that's the most important thing to avoid while commenting.
you have experience with others and if clickbait is a problem, original title is totally ok for me
others wrote it is outrageous I think I would not have even recognized the duplicate flag or that the title changed myself :) it gave me the false impression something bad happened to me :)
you can totally remove these comments of mine complaining, I iterated on this now and everything ok!
yeah this you are terrible comment may have been too much, I will not be personal in the future!
Thanks for the kind replies! Don't worry, the only thing that matters is using HN in the intended spirit going forward. If you have questions in the future, feel free to send them our way at hn@ycombinator.com.
It's alright, you know now for your next submission.
Regarding the dupe removal: I am slightly inclined towards your side, because it's not really a dupe, but, still I understand where the mods are coming from, especially if a good amount of discussion already happened around the same topic recently.
and I wrote a nice article-ish piece myself, trying to get above "I want my walled garden" and "everybody hates pwa" comments you find under those links above...
