I changed it the same way we change every such title which relies on linkbait tropes (which is what "I am $X. Here's how $Y" is). Linkbait tropes make HN threads worse. Editing them is standard moderation practice (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...), and is also in the site guidelines ("Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).
Whenever we do any moderation on any divisive topic there's a strong tendency to leap to the conclusion that it signifies some political agenda, secret opposition to one side, secret support for the other, and so on. I understand that that's how the internet works. But it's deeply untrue. We're simply doing what we always do, as even-handedly as we're able.
Unfortunately, to the extent that one is even-handed (and I'm not saying we do that perfectly, just to an extent), passionate partisans on every side of every divisive topic end up feeling like the mods are secretly against them. Why? Because by definition even-handedness means they all have some data points to object to, and that's all they need to jump to such conclusions (actually, even just one data point, or maybe two, is enough to produce this conclusion). There doesn't seem to be any way around that, much as I wish there were.
dang, why are such posts even allowed? It's posted by an anonymous user who's just created his account, and the content his highly one-sided and prone to create political flame wars.
Some posts with political overlap are on-topic for HN. Exactly how we handle that is a complex question, but also one that has been well-worked-out over the years. Here are some detailed explanations:
The current post was obviously submitted because https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27638871 got flagged. I'm currently trying to decide whether to restore the earlier submission instead of this one, which is what we'd normally do, or whether that thread is unsalvageable. Not clear. Edit: that thread looks pretty unsalvageable.
That blog article contains misinformation which I was too busy to address. I don't think this platform is the place for political flamewars. Facebook and other media platforms are full of anti-Semitism (yes, not just anti-Israeli stuff) in the Arabic language -- something which escapes many people here and in the media in general.
I also took care to use representative language from the article itself, describing what it is about. That's also standard moderation practice: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que....
Whenever we do any moderation on any divisive topic there's a strong tendency to leap to the conclusion that it signifies some political agenda, secret opposition to one side, secret support for the other, and so on. I understand that that's how the internet works. But it's deeply untrue. We're simply doing what we always do, as even-handedly as we're able.
Unfortunately, to the extent that one is even-handed (and I'm not saying we do that perfectly, just to an extent), passionate partisans on every side of every divisive topic end up feeling like the mods are secretly against them. Why? Because by definition even-handedness means they all have some data points to object to, and that's all they need to jump to such conclusions (actually, even just one data point, or maybe two, is enough to produce this conclusion). There doesn't seem to be any way around that, much as I wish there were.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html