The thing is, MOND was for a long time the preferred option, for basically all the same reasons a scientifically-literate layman would prefer it. The only reaso

The thing is, MOND was for a long time the preferred option, for basically all the same reasons a scientifically-literate layman would prefer it. The only reason DM is generally the more popular option amongst physicists is because it's beaten out the other theories at explaining the data (and it's not like it's universal: as can be seen by this paper there are many credible scientists still exploring and advocating for the idea, even if they are the minority). What I think gets tiring is people looking at it without that much depth (and pop-sci articles are a puddle) and then jumping to the conclusion that the majority of scientists are wrong because obviously MOND-type theories are a more appealing option. They would be, if they worked well enough. DM itself still has problems with some observations. It's not settled, but it's not going to get settled by a bunch of internet comments.