Go through a typical college writing class and the teacher will direct you to delete phrases like “I think” and “I believe” from your writing.
I'm all for pieces clearly from a personal perspective. There one can drop the redundant "I think" bits. But often dropping the qualifier turns it from a statement about one person to a universal statement, as with the title of the article. For me this erases the many interesting possibilities in between.
For example, a post title something like, "Which programmers find Ruby more readable than Python?" is way more interesting. The universal is false, but I'm sure it's true for some people and false for others. An exploration of that could lead to interesting ways to think about languages. E.g., is it better for novice programmers? For programmers from non-engineering backgrounds? For programmers with difference cognitive styles or capabilities?
What if you don't care about analyzing the psychologies of programmers, and just want to say why one thing is more readable than another thing?
In a world where people (in general) are capable of distinguishing fact from opinion (most of the time), you can omit the "I think", "I believe", "I feel" crap. In a world where people are bad at distinguishing fact from opinion, you can't rely on the "I think", "I believe", "I feel" crap because writers wouldn't be able to use them correctly.
I do wonder how this style of writing has impacted the psychology of argument, I imagine there are others who read this style of writing and assume it is written in stone or as an objective statement, and not a subjective one. This may just be human nature.
I find it makes for less combative discussions. So I like it.
Eternal September gets worse when their teachers are teaching them bad habits from the get-go.
In your opinion eternal September....
Assuming "click bait", "trolling" and "dramatically" are all either explicitly defined or implicitly defined by consensus or what have you, this would not be a matter of opinion but of fact, so stating "I think" would either be incorrect or would be an admission of uncertainty about whether the fact is true. If he is correct and honest, he has no reason to add the phrase. If he is dishonest or incorrect, he has reason not to add the phrase.
Additionally, in the context of the full sentence, it would imply that the subject pronoun "this" is causing his thoughts rather than causing the object of his thoughts, but I know what you mean. I think.