Zoom transforms hype into huge jump in sales, customers

It turns out that the author of the article thinks so too, because he tweeted https://twitter.com/nicoagrant/status/1268020841054269440. Not only that, but that another user submitted that to HN an hour before you posted the Bloomberg article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23399924. It seems like the fairest solution is to merge the threads and let the other submission be the primary thread. If we had karma-sharing, we'd share the karma, but we don't yet—sorry.

Original comment below, but I'd probably have written it differently now. This was really a borderline case, where the rule in the guidelines doesn't help that much.

-----

There's a straightforward solution to this problem: you should have used the original title, as the site guidelines ask, and then posted a comment explaining what you thought was important about the article.

Titles are by far the strongest influence on threads, and being the first to submit an article on HN confers no special rights to frame the content for everybody else. Posting an initial comment is the obvious fix, because then your view is on a level playing field with everbody else's: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu....

Edit: Actually, I'm sympathetic to the predicament here, because the bulk of this article is namby-pamby "Zoom is growing" stuff that isn't interesting. But a single sentence at the end of such an article isn't enough to make a good HN submission. In that case what you should have done instead was post some other article that goes in-depth into the important issue. If there's no such other article, then maybe the issue isn't that important. Or, if you're the first to notice how important it is, then you could write something about how important it is and post that instead.