Four quick (and final) points in response: 1) Your reply contains arrogance and a patronising sneer at myself. This is against this site's guidelines. 2) A qu

Four quick (and final) points in response: 1) Your reply contains arrogance and a patronising sneer at myself. This is against this site's guidelines. 2) A quick perusal of your comment history shows more of the same attitude and also indications that you possibly work for Google. 3) You evidently didn't read the full article I linked to (only responded to the section I quoted) which is a very good analysis of this situation. 4) Preview links may drive some traffic to sites but most often ppl just respond to what's shown on FB (the headline, an image, and text snippet). So FB profits by mechanically condensing other parties' news stories on its site while posting ads against them, knowing that people most often won't go read the full story on the linked site and that they are driving an ever shallower take on the news.