Thank you.
Not that I think either of these will actually affect anything. People write what people write what will get them views. Polarizing statements allow people to form sides, allowing more posts, which causes more views.
Welcome to The Internet, where Obviously Everyone Will Do What's Best for The Internet, Because We All Live Here Too. Been here long?
That's a problem that keeps me from being willing to buy many nonfiction books as well, which seem to always have absurd linkbait-style "[Thing | Person | Idea]: Why It's [Changing | Ruining] Everything" titles and often have not-very-nuanced content. Some kinds of scientific and academic-press books are excepted, though they have their own set of problems.
For example, I wish there were an investigation of the pros and cons of how pervasive technology is changing how people think, which didn't take either of the two polarized views that it's really great, totally amazing or completely terrible, ruining civilization. But instead, we get dueling books, one from each extreme: Clay Shirky's Cognitive Surplus versus Nicholas Carr's The Shallows.
Unfortunately, it works, both on and off the internet, so it seems pretty hard to change. Imagine trying to sell a hypothetical third book to a publisher, where you take a calm, reasoned look at the pros and cons of technology's effect on cognition, concluding with neither a strong positive nor a strong negative assessment, but a little of both why it's good and bad, and an outline of areas where more research is still needed. Would a publisher be very excited about trying to sell that position? Much better for them to market two books, one "it's great" and one "it's terrible", than to try to sell an in-between book. See also: any book that mentions "conservatives" or "liberals" in the title.