> People get upset about title editing on HN because they only notice the cases they dislike. Any practice will seem obnoxious if you only count the things it gets wrong.

I don't like or dislike any particular title or headline. I dislike the policy of selectively altering an author or publisher's chosen headline in general.

> I can tell you after over a decade doing this job that the title moderation on HN is probably the single most beneficial thing we do. Without that, the front page would consist of linkbait, sensationalism, and rage.

I appreciate the insight. Is the plan to keep this policy in place indefinitely in order to protect us from ourselves? I find it very depressing that a community like HN cannot be trusted to look at an unedited list of headlines. Do you think there is any hope of eventually developing something like a collective immunity (or even resistance) to clickbait? If it can't happen here, what does that say about the prospects for media literacy more broadly?