Flagging this because a toot isn't news and the discussion isn't discussing the paper, everybodys just going off vibes in here.
This was further exacerbated because the linked study seemingly ignores what happened on the day specified to demonstrate their narrative.
Essentially, the linked study placed the cart before the horse.
The study doesn't offer any conclusion, but it analyses some data and offers a potential interpretation. Other interpretations can be provided and discussed. The post was heading for the front page. Personally, I was very interested in the discussion.
Was any HN guideline broken?
Basically arguing that correlation is causation and placing the cart before the horse. This isn't good grounds for insightful or even useful conversations and this was already breaking the guidelines by being a political subject matter about celebrities.
Second, the speculation you're writing about is an interpretation of the new data analysis.
Third, the authors don't argue that correlation is causation. If you still think they do, then please quote the sentence where they do that.
Honestly, it looks like this thread is being taken down because some people don't like it, including you, which goes against HN guidelines.
I have a feeling that the research on its own would not have generated the discussion that the toot did, because the toot really just prompted people to give their own impression without discussing the actual research. Sometimes I flag stuff just because it's flame bait, maybe the submission didn't break guidelines but the comments will be snarky and shallow and not conducive to building the community culture. And I rely on the democratic aspect of HN, if my flag is frivolous so be it, no harm done.