• Ooops@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    The article is very negative, so I assume the study results are too.

    Which will always -and completely independent of the topic- be wrong.

    Articles are negative because it gets more clicks and that’s all that matters. If the underlying topic fits or needs to be totally misrepresented is irrelevant.

    Click-, engagement- and rage-bait > facts

    And as adequate auto-translation is widely available: here is the neutral 3-page summary of the study in German.

    • Kissaki@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Thank you for linking the study document.

      I don’t think the article is any more negative than the study summary you label neutral in terms of causes. Both list various issues, in a similar way.