Leaked data reveals Israeli govt campaign to remove pro-Palestine posts on Meta

Why is the word Israeli removed from the title? and Meta added? Seems like quite a politically-important modification

Edit: ok you guys, all your responses have convinced me that I misread the room, and I'm going to reverse the title edit now.

-- original reply: --

I did those title edits to (marginally) reduce the flamebait effect of the title, in keeping with standard moderation practice (see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). Titles have by far the biggest impact on discussion quality, so this is a big deal. Especially when the topic is divisive.

I totally understand the contention around this topic but you're altering the keypoint of what the article is about. Why remove one country name and keep the other? The article is not about Meta, but how their platform is being manipulated by one country against the other. Your edit shows a strong evidence you're not taking a partisan position and have a preference. I am not sure you should be editing contenious posts when you don't hold a partisan position. Your edit is in the same realm as what the post is talking about. I understand moderation is tricky, but this goes way beyond moderation.

> this goes way beyond moderation

I'm sorry, but that's not true—quite the opposite.

If you guys had any idea how next-to-impossible it is to host substantive discussions about a topic like this, you should recognize that you're getting what you want (frontpage attention for this story) instead of complaining about a secondary detail (the title edit).

A title edit like that is not making a statement about the underlying story, and certainly not trying to suppress any aspect of it. The article is one click away for people to read and make up their own minds about. This thread is filled with comments about the detail that I took out of the title; no one is missing it.

Rather, what I did was bog standard HN moderation, the sort of thing we've done thousands of times on hundreds of topics over 15+ years, purely for the purpose of supporting a substantive discussion of the article that you (I don't mean you personally, but the set of commenters who have been complaining about this) want to be discussed in the first place. From my point of view, that amounts to demanding 100% instead of saying yes to the 90% that you're getting in this case. That's not a realistic assessment of the tradeoffs with a thread like this.

Edit: I'm sorry if that sounded tetchy—I certainly understand the feeling you're expressing and why it feels that way.