You need a bit more substance than association by guilt (and not even a strong association) to criticize an article or a headline. My reading of e.g. "quietly" is that either they're claiming a scoop, or they're critical of the acquisition, not of bad faith.
“Quietly” is a way to imply wrongdoing in something purporting to be a news article. Which is funny because you can use “openly” the same way, and it seems to me that every action can be characterized as either quiet or open.
That’s why it’s bad faith. It’s a cheap shot that purely injects a negative feeling without actually expressing an opinion.
“Teamshares buys mom and pops to lock them in as customers” or “Teamshares screws small businesses to make a buck” would be honest, good faith headlines. Innuendo is never good faith.
I did mean guilt by association. The comment's author assumes the articles uses cheap devices based on an association the word "quietly" with bad faith arguments.
The headline would feel less like clickbait if it omitted "this": "Venture-backed startup has...". The word "this" in a headline has become strongly associated with low-effort articles that try to draw you in by being simultaneously provocative and non-informative.
I agree. I've started avoiding almost any headline with the phrase "this X ..." where you've got to click to see what X is. Almost invariably, the headline could have easily specified what X was but then you might know you don't have any interest.
And headlines using “This company” rather than naming the company are clickbait.
Funny that TechCrunch wants to cast aspersions using cheap devices like that.