I wonder how much of the bias for publishing positive results is a holdover from the days of having only paper journals:

On the Internet, we have unlimited room for publishing results; there's no reason not to publish the negative ones.

When research was published only in paper journals, there was scarce space even for positive results; possibly it would have been considered a waste to use that precious space for negative results. Also, people reading those journals had limited time and wanted the most important results; they may have expected what we would call a 'curated' collection of studies. These days the studies are published in databases and nobody expects them all.