Taking things=bad as an article of faith is basically the entire premise of social media analysis papers. They're very fed-coded and are virtually all published by grants to combat "misinformation", which is vaguely defined and mostly seems to mean, "whatever is against the ruling class liberal status quo PR teams want to be true today".
Here is a Nature paper in this vein about "pro-Russian misinformation" from just last year: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-60653-y . It is just as meaningless and thing=bad-y as this post's paper, but it is written better, has better graphics, uses more sophisticated jargon, and comes from a more prestigious group.