Eric the Orange said:
Clickbait is an article with a title ment to make people want to click it.
By this definition, any article that's remotely interesting or newsworthy (aka the writers doing their jobs) is clickbait.
I think a far more standard and accepted definition is titles that do one of two things:
[ol]
[li]Blatantly omit key piece information that didn't need omitted, so that you need to read the article to even know what it's about. For example: "You won't believe what purchases are getting refunds on Steam"[/li]
[li]Intentionally mislead readers with a flat-out dishonest title, such as by paraphrasing the dev to say something they didn't say, such as: "Octodad Dev Thinks Refunds Are Ruining Steam, Here's Why"[/li]
[/ol]
The only thing this news story is guilty of is not putting the entire multi-paragraph article into the title, which is completely reasonable (I'd hope for obvious reasons). Not clickbait at all, by any sane definition. The title isn't excessively editorialized, dishonest, or lacking something it should contain, so I really don't see cause for complaint.
P.S. Thanks
P.P.S. Seriously, as has been pointed out, the system is brand new. Any study on its positive and negative effects, in order to be remotely worthwhile, will need to last several months, not days, and won't even begin until after the system has stabilized so as to avoid being significantly skewed by obvious outlier data. Trying to reach any sort of conclusion now is like going to a Magic: The Gathering tournament, asking six people what the best card game is, and then announcing that MtG is the most popular card game in the world. Both the sample size and source are gonna make the data worthless, and a high percentage of people who would give answers such as Poker aren't even going to be represented.