Edit: Ok, we'll restore it, but with a less inflammatory title that is taken from the article's top paragraph. If someone suggests a better title we can change it again.
I don't think this is the right choice when the titles are so different.
I did not read "Why we are leaving Heroku" because someone's gripes with a host I don't use is low-priority. Its effectively invisible to me. I am however interested in the broader story that impacts dozens of companies, changes to US law and the nature of privacy itself - so I read this one and it was clearly gathering more interest.
How about retitling the other story and merging the discussions?
Whether it's a duplicate is not a question of the titles but of the story's content. Two stories from the same site advocating for exactly the same cause are pretty clearly dupes by the usual HN standard. But since people seem to feel strongly about this one, we'll override that and restore it.
This reduces exposure for the story though. This was the no. 1 link on HN when you marked it as a duplicate completely removing this link from the front page.
The other story looks Heroku specific (I interpreted the other story title as something about bitter employees for one specific company leaving that company, not about a severe threat to privacy), this was the one that got attention. I think it would be a good idea to restore it, because it will probably loose a lot of exposure otherwise.
Edit: Ok, we'll restore it, but with a less inflammatory title that is taken from the article's top paragraph. If someone suggests a better title we can change it again.