They discuss the economic and social incentives (even the cognitive dissonance that what I'm writing must be important if a lot of people read it) of the writer

They discuss the economic and social incentives (even the cognitive dissonance that what I'm writing must be important if a lot of people read it) of the writers. However, the readers are also turning off their BS detectors. I'm not a great proponent of the so called "Gell-Mann Amnesia", if only because it's been reported about in Wired Magazine and I know how much they get wrong, but some of these academics and reporters have real responsibilities and reputations. They deserve to be publicly criticized, because only shame or lost income will change the behavior. However, we readers get our own little dopamine boost from reading stuff we want to believe in or at least arguing about it. It's great being told your first impression was right all along, or that you're the first to read some amazing result nobody expected, and even better a combination of both! That's dangerous, if you want to make reasonable decisions about what to focus on rather than simple entertainment. I'll propose a solution: fix the link headline! Can LLMs in the browser be used to rewrite the headlines of full articles (and heck why not the source material) to add "in vitro" or "in mice" or "in (1988)" or "based on a single result" or "in a pay-to-play journal"? I'd think it would be much more difficult to trick even a dumb LLM without resorting to very clearly unethical reporting and it would make A/B testing headlines less important. LLMs don't have dopamine.