But often the top comment debunks what you think is true, and then you learn something. > It quickly becomes this weird bubble of people just acting on what ev

But often the top comment debunks what you think is true, and then you learn something. > It quickly becomes this weird bubble of people just acting on what everything "thinks" the content is about without ever having looked at the content. That isn't an issue though since the important part is what you learn or not, not whether you think an imaginary article is true or not. If you learn something from someone debunking an imaginary article, that is just as good as learning something from debunking a real article. The only issue here is attribution, but why should a reader care about that? Edit: And it isn't an issue that people will think it actually debunks the linked article, since there will always be a sub comment stating that the commenter didn't read the article and therefore missed the mark.