Simon's post focuses more on the startup/AI Village that caused the issue with citations and quotes, which has been lost in the discussion due to Rob Pike's initial heated message. It is not redundant.

He links to both HN and lobsters which already contained this information, from before he did any research, so "has been lost" is certainly a take...

But if that's value added, why frame it under the heading of popular drama/rage farming? To capture more attention? Do you believe the pop culture news sites would be interested if it discussed the idea and "experiment" without mentioning the rage bait?

"How Rob Pike got spammed with an AI slop 'act of kindness'" is an objectively accurate frame that informs the user what it's related to: the only potentially charged part of it is calling it "AI slop" but that's not inaccurate. It does not fit the definition of ragebait (blatant misleading headline to encourage impulse reactions) nor does it fit the definition of clickbait (blatant omission of information to encourage the user to click though: having a headline with "How" does not fit the definition of clickbait, it just tells you what the article is about)

How do you propose he should have framed it in a way that it is still helpful to the reader?