The problem with science dissemination is not that it's too accessible but rather the polar opposite: even experts find reading some (many? Most?) papers truly dreadful because of the terse and dryness but one does it for the knowledge; on the other hand everyone else absolutely needs to rely on "science popularisers" to even half-understand half of what a paper is about. And that's the problem: the general scientific understanding is as good as the scientific rigor of the most understandable/entertaining science populariser out there.
To clarify: if person A is extremely diligent and precise but not too enjoyable to watch, they will get X views and maybe a limited (but positive) impact, on the other hand person B is not very diligent, cuts corners or even outright lies but is very easy and fun to watch, they reach N more people than person A, having an absolute huge (albeit negative) impact.
If the authors had a way to write both for experts and, somehow, have control on how that knowledge is available to the rest, the delta between the two methods of dissemination would be minimal (or at least controlled).
At this point, there are more comments about the title than about its contents.
Note that the title accurately describes what the article is about. As opposed to clickbait. Clickbait would have been "You would never believe what we put into graphene!".
The credibility problems science has is because instead of replicating the contents of a paper people have seveloped and over-reliance on other peripheral metrics like which papers it has been published in, p-values and such. Relying on the seriousness of titles is just another of those distractions.
Maybe I’ve read too many applied machine learning papers. As long as the funny title isn’t dishonest, I’m all for it.
(But I'm with you, words matter, and I loved your comment).