I think the problem is that it's quite challenging to explain something like the "Many Worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics to a general audience that of

I think the problem is that it's quite challenging to explain something like the "Many Worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics to a general audience that often doesn't have any prior knowledge of modern Physics or even linear algebra. So, in order to explain it in simple words, people use analogies. And analogies are probably the greatest tool we have in teaching, because they help people to understand a given aspect of a theory by comparing it to something they already know. However, when taken too far they will always break down. Hence, in order to do good popular science, we need to find analogies that fit very well with the theory which we want to explain, and when using them we need to make it very clear which parts of the analogous system can be mapped to the theory we explain, and which ones can't. From reading the articles the author cited as examples of "Fake Physics" I have the impression that their authors simply took the analogies they used too far, thereby saying things that are simply not true. And while this surely is problematic I wouldn't call those articles "fake", as there seems to be no malicious intent behind the misleading analogies.