It would be equally believable that people are simply using different, more fashionable, words, but reasoning the same as they have always done.
Media-hound scientists will always walk straight past the less interesting explanations of their data and seize on the most attention-grabbing conclusion as the one "the data clearly suggests."
Then the comment section will go "what about the less interesting explanations"? Which of course were downplayed in the paper, and omitted entirely from the media promotion of the paper.
And it even looks as if they've assigned "intuition" vs "rational" words afterwards. How come "truth" is intuition while "determine" isn't? But adding "facebook" is really the nail in the coffin: that only became available in 2004 or so, and so could almost only show an upward trend.