Way to speak for another person's intentions AND feelings! That's where we are nowadays, I guess.
It's their article, I think it's fair they ask for the name of the post to be preserved. It has nothing to do with their intent (clickbait or not) that the audience here voted up their submission.
> I used Google's name in the title because that name elicits reaction from almost 100% of the audience,
And
>Changing the title from "Google" to "Third Party Auth" significantly softens the impact and urgency I want the reader to feel upon reading the title,
It sounds rather like parent was correct in calling it click bait. For me, any article that has aspirations to manipulating ones emotions in order to illicit a particular outcome is definitely selling some propagandist notion... Aka click bait.
That the article's content, HN submission and the parent comment is the same person @gurjeet, I would like to thank @dang for the modification.
But that's not what clickbait is. Clickbait is a title that quickly imposes the feeling of missing and important information. Especially to get people to click through so the link target can serve ads. That's clearly not OPs goal as he makes the title a call to action, omitting no critical information.
Propaganda has nothing to do with the definition of clickbait, so saying "[propaganda ...] Aka click bait." Is very misleading. And betrays your argument that everything should be exclusively logic, specifically omitting any appeal to emotion. That's exactly what you're trying to do by portraying op as using propaganda. And rhetorically speaking would be a disservice to both reader and article.
It's their article, I think it's fair they ask for the name of the post to be preserved. It has nothing to do with their intent (clickbait or not) that the audience here voted up their submission.