[darkteflon]

That is all fine and good as a quote in the body text of the article, but as a headline that is criminally poor editorial work from the Guardian. If it’s intentional clickbait, my opinion of that paper sinks even lower. To think, under Rusbridger it was my daily read.

[xorbax]

It summarizes the point of the article using the words of people interviewed.

How do you judge it as "clickbait"?

[darkteflon]

I don’t. My comment makes it clear that I consider editorial oversight to be the most likely culprit.

As for the “why”: as an in-context quote it’s fine; out of context - as an article heading - there’s a high chance that the reader will understand it literally and be shocked by it. As pointed out in the other comments. A heading that is misleadingly designed to shock is the definition of clickbait. If, as I said, it was intentional.