"Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait."
The original headline is a bit sensational/clickbaity. That's a judgment call in this case, IMO, but I suspect that's why the title was changed.
First:
- The more improbable a message is, the more information it contains, assuming the message is true
- If the message is untrue it contains no information
- If a message is already known by everyone it contains no information
Not Clickbait:
If a message is surprising (seemingly unlikely or previously unknown), and true, then it contains high information, and will be very likely to be clicked. This is not just a good thing, it's the most optimal thing!
Clickbait:
If a message is surprising and untrue, it will also very likely be clicked if the user cannot easily determine that the message is untrue. The user may then be disappointed when they discover the message actually contained no information because it was false. Incidentally, false messages will always have a high probability of appearing to be high information messages, because they will often appear to have the least likelihood.
Incidentally, this is (in my opinion) the theoretical problem of fake news. It will always appear to be high information to those unable to determine if it's true or false. In other words, it will appear to be of the highest value, when really it has no value (or even negative value if you look at the system level rather than just information level).
A linkbaity or sensational title would have been “you won’t believe what IBM claims”.
The pendulum has swung too far. This wasn't clickbait, it was a fair and accurate summary of the full piece. Flag the entire post if you think it's inherently inflammatory, downvote, ban it if you're an admin, but this title had no business being edited.
Questions about whether the entire article is misleading should be addressed via discussion in the comments or, if it's egregiously wrong, flagged/downvoted/removed.
Oh, so having an actual opinion about something is clickbaity now?