I have submitted this yesterday [1]. The submission didn't make the front page. The title of the article is "Microsoft and Apple Wage War on Gadget Right-to-Repair Laws". When the title was editoralized to insert Google, it made to front-page. Can someone explain why the editing of the title?
It's largely random which submission of an article ends up getting traction. That's true across every topic, so I doubt that inserting Google into the title made the difference.
As for why - perhaps the submitter felt that it was misleading for the title to pick on just MS and Apple when Google is also implicated in the article? That's a legit reason to edit a title on HN—it's one of the unlesses in "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait".
Amazon was also included in the article. I don't see Amazon on the title. And the submitter even put Google in front of Microsoft. The submitter not only added Google, also changed the order.
Probably not random. Since there is always _at least_ one anti-Google article makes to front page every day. And the quality of discussion on Google related is probably the lowest on HN. The mod team didn't seem very eager to moederate Google related threads so far.
Well, I'm not going to make a kitchen-sink affair out of the title by stuffing Amazon up there as well, so I've reverted to the article title above. Now would you please stop posting this tedious off-topic stuff?
Everyone who has preferences for one $Bigco over another thinks that HN and HN mods are biased against their favorite $Bigco and biased in favor of whatever $Bigco they don't like. You could substitute any other $Bigco for Google in your comment and it would be exactly what other commenters claim. This is tedious, as I mentioned; it is merely a projection of the commenter's own preferences.
It's the same phenomenon by which zealous sports fans think the refs are totally biased. It's actually a cognitive bias rooted in the fact that the bad (what you dislike) stands out more than the good (what you agree with)—i.e. people heavily weight what they dislike, and underemphasize, or simply fail to notice, all the opposing data points.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27225003