[InGoodFaith]

> The titles are misleading (purposely, because it attracts interest)

I am neutral to this conversation but thought you might not want to justify this point as it is against the spirit of HN. Specifically in the guidelines:

> Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.

Which would give the submitter permission to change the title to something more substantive.

[zmxz]

When you read the posts and when you don't rely on titles, you can see the point that the author argues.

2FA does suck, it's not a pleasant experience but it is necessary. If something sucks, it does not mean that you don't have to or should not have to use it. There are things that hinder user experience but are immense for security, like 2FA is.

Making judgment based on title is silly, and if the spirit of HN is to judge without facts - then I apologize. Carry on as you were.

The strawman argument against the author, based on the title that provokes thought, is not a sign of intellectual discussion.

[InGoodFaith]

I am in agreement with what you are saying.

> and if the spirit of HN is to judge without facts - then I apologize.

Although snarky, I am sure you would appreciate if HN doesn't devolve into sensationalist titles such as: "PHP sucks" ad nauseam since there are plenty of social media networks that get flooded with titles like that already.

Just as we (the audience) in good faith read and judge based off of the merits of the article's content - one could also argue that an author should treat the audience with similar courtesy of not needing to:

> misleading (purposely, because it attracts interest)

Not saying this applies to this article since in my subjective view I didn't find the title misleading or egregious.

You might also be interested in seeing the recent edit history of titles on HN

https://hackernewstitles.netlify.app/

[29athrowaway]

PHP does suck though, and OAuth doesn't.