While also - paradoxically - forgetting that there are plenty of dark places just outside your city if you're willing to drive to them.
Perhaps it's in service of baiting you to click.
It's like wishing that tall high density housing didn't block your formerly great view, all while ignoring the fact that there's not enough affordable housing in your area.
Wishes without thought show naivety at best or selfishness at worst. I probably won't agree with kelnos, but at least kelnos thought about the problem surrounding his desire.
That's actually what I thought this article would be about when I first read the title!
In the eastern half of the US and the western 3/4 of mainland europe, there are very few spots that are below bortle 4. In these regions of the world, people in big cities (i.e. most people) would still need to drive 1-2 hours just to get to bortle 4, let alone below that.
If you live in England, for example, there is nowhere you can go to see a truly dark night sky. If you live in New York City, it’s a 4 hour drive, and even that isn’t completely dark.
I know for a fact that just putting old school light shutters on streetlights so they don't leak into, say, bedrooms and stay focused on pavement and sidewalks, and dimming them off hours, would be a huge change that doesn't diminish utility at all.
It does though, by redirecting funds & human effort that could be used for more lighting.
Here's a counter-anecdote though, to give you hope.
In Bondi in Sydney there's a lighting upgrade underway on the beach promenade; the plan was circulated so I got to take a look. As you hoped they indeed did deeply consider throw angles and what's lit & unlit, and ran a competitive tender to choose among many vendors, settling on one they lauded for their flexibility in offering products that can throw at specific angles and leave specific areas unlit. In the plan published for public comments they specify the exact angles needed with diagrams and everything. So it's possible! It requires public servants to go above and beyond, which does happen, just not all the time and not in all the places. But it does happen!
If you go talk to professional astronomers about this, they're pretty practical, and thankfully, they can be. The single biggest improvement we can make is shielding the directionality of the lights - and not using harsh bright white lights. Thankfully, doing both of these actually improves the usability for the lights for their intended purposes.
Down at the Macdonald Observatory in Ft. Davis they have worked with surrounding cities, industrial compounds, etc., to get light pollution down. I was watching a presentation they gave on the subject and a large industrial complex moved from fairly un-targeted bright white floodlights to the more yellow/amber lights that shielded upwards reflection - the peak brightness was lower, but it covered things much more evenly, didn't impact your night vision as much when working in it, which then kept darker spots from being pitch black holes like they were with the bright white floodlights. They improved safety for their workers - measurably! - and significantly reduced the amount of light being polluted back up into the sky.
And no, the loss of dark skies is a real issue. The article points out multiple issues not even related to human enjoyment of dark skies, but literally impacting our ecosystems. These are real and measured and not debated. If you are going to accuse this of being clickbait, perhaps engage with the actual points in the article and point out how they aren't actually of concern and why?