The man's livelihood was destroyed, without a provided justification or an apparent means of appeal. The "court of public opinion" is basically his only shot to get it back, and that requires views. Clickbait gets views.
That's not a bad argument, but it isn't a good fit for HN. Clickbait is against the site guidelines, because its strengths—attracting quick attention and generating indignation—are actually weaknesses for intellectual curiosity, the main value of this site.
Its not clickbait. They gave him no explanation for the ban. They required a video call. It is reasonable to speculate that his appearance could have been a factor.
Ok, but the title doesn't speculate; it makes the claim outright. People naturally feel rage at the image of someone being banned so arbitrarily and trivially. Generating rage with evidenceless claims is definitely clickbait.
The man's livelihood was destroyed, without a provided justification or an apparent means of appeal. The "court of public opinion" is basically his only shot to get it back, and that requires views. Clickbait gets views.