[francisduvivier]

Interesting here how the HN rules seem to be a limitation. I'd say the fact that Amazon is using it's power in a very unexpected way should be highlighted somehow in the title.

But because the original blog writer doesn't do that, current HN rules say you should not do that either. Instead, HN rules say you should post the original article and keep the original title. But in this case, by doing that you are effectively hiding what actually happened. This original title sounds so uninteresting that I'd say it would be warranted here to post the article with the title of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36294748

[lolinder]

I strongly disagree. That rule exists specifically to remove any ambiguity about when it's "warranted" to change the title and when it's not. The author's title accurately reflects the author's perspective on the incident and the overall tone of the piece.

Changing the title to be more inflammatory would color the perspective of readers in a way that the author didn't intend, and would make the conversation on here considerably worse. HN is intended for curious discussion, not outrage brigading, and the headline rule is one of several defense mechanisms that attempt to keep it that way.