Headlines can be accurate and incomplete. Headlines can be accurate and unintentionally ambiguous. A headline that conveys the totality of a situation or subject is a tweet.
Or are paywalled, and/or require you to dismiss 57 pop-ups, reject cookies, stop and scroll past an irrelevant auto-playing video, and search for the actual content in half in wide strips between multiple 7" tall ads, some of which are excerpts from unrelated "articles" on the same site.
Wow… this is something that users on The Site That Shall Not Be Named were especially hostile about. Even if you made an irrelevant spelling mistake, it was like people couldn’t wait to be first to tell you to “read the fucking article.”
Actually, a lot of them didn’t even care about being first. Have eight people already commented “read the article”? So what? Might as well say the exact same thing a ninth time!
What is this BS? Are you saying I can't just formulate a hasty opinion based solely off of 5 seconds of scanning a click-baity title and completely ignore any sort of subtle nuance or delve deeper for more information? I am OUTRAGED.
Aside from clickbait headlines subconsciously making opening links even more sus than it already is, they all just want you to go to the actual article so they can track at the very least their pagevisits for personal validation, leaving you either with misunderstandable headlines or "...and this is what happened next..."-cliffhangers.
Anyway, crossposting an article on many mediums - instead of making it on one external site and posting the link to other mediums - usually solves the problem. I'll be more likely to read the entirety of anything òn the website I'm at than I am to follow external links to the unknown website people "thought was safe enough". 😅