Unlike "Et-tu, ______" or "Let them eat ______", for example, "The End of ______" is far too generic, when standing alone (i.e. pre-click), for the reader to au

Unlike "Et-tu, ______" or "Let them eat ______", for example, "The End of ______" is far too generic, when standing alone (i.e. pre-click), for the reader to automatically expect a reference a 30-year-old, twice-revised, heavily-criticized (credibly) essay -- as opposed to the simple, literal definition that the thing is ending. Had this author titled his post "The End of History? (for mobile)" or "The End of Mobile and The Last Man," then maybe, maybe, I'd agree with you. It would be deceitful to title an article "The End of Climate Change Danger," for example, if that article was in fact arguing that it was inevitable that climate change will harm the planet significantly. The original title "The End of History?" is itself click-bait, misdirecting readers with a provocative headline that relies on an already obscure, non-dictionary definition of "history." Had Fukuyama simply titled his article "All nations will eventually rule by Liberal Democracy," it would likely never have even been noticed.