> Plenty of articles are about a topic people are sufficiently knowledgeable about to be able to discuss it at length without reading the article in question.

> Plenty of articles are about a topic people are sufficiently knowledgeable about to be able to discuss it at length without reading the article in question. What I mean is: the article is the topic. The comments I'm objecting to, are, for example, pointing out a problem with something said in the article, because they got to that paragraph, and then went to HN and posted their disagreement, without reading the very next paragraph where that objection is addressed. Even if they are very knowledgeable about the topic, this isn't a contribution to the discussion, it's a step back in the discussion--maybe they are an expert and could address the author's response to their objection too, but they don't, because they weren't arsed to read the thing they were responding to. > While this type of discussion can also include people who are commenting while uninformed, that doesn't mean that anyone who hasn't read the linked piece is uninformed about the topic. Agreed, but it does mean they are uninformed about the linked piece, which hinders discussion if they're just repeating things said in the piece, objecting to things already addressed in the piece, or whatever. Being an expert on the topic of an article doesn't prevent this.