To you and GP - I think the original title was misleading, and I tried not to and hope I succeeded in not editorialising. Editorialising is injecting personal opinion instead of focusing on the facts, which is the opposite of what I did. I removed the misleading ambiguity and instead stated as clearly and shortly as I could the essence of the story.
The original title leaves open the idea that this decision doesn't have a precedent which it is overturning, which is unnecessary and misleading. And the original title strongly implies that the recent revelation from Meta only relates to the U.S., which similarly is not true and is misleading.
For a U.S. audience that might seem to make sense, but HN has international readers.
The decision on the title was already made - in the source. Unless the source violated HN guidelines, its title should be kept as is and not "improved".
The original title leaves open the idea that this decision doesn't have a precedent which it is overturning, which is unnecessary and misleading. And the original title strongly implies that the recent revelation from Meta only relates to the U.S., which similarly is not true and is misleading.
For a U.S. audience that might seem to make sense, but HN has international readers.