I've slowly been developing the opposite habit. Over the years I've become more interested in how articles are digested by people without an agenda (which the modern, salaried digital author may be increasingly pressured to succumb to). Reception is demonstrated in comment sections, and that sometimes feels like a more pure read, stripped of whatever fluff or flair a journalist may feel compelled to add (accelerated portfolio enrichment attempt? Agenda implies bonus payment).

We can assume these may also be populated by automatically generated comments to suggest support or rejection of the content. Sometimes this leads me into [rabbit-hole] investigations through a user's post history if I am significantly moved by their angle(s).

I needn't read anything more than the title, as the meat content would likely just be an assimilation of empirical evidence and/or gossip. I'm not even going to bother turning off ad blocker or using archive.is with this one - in aggregate I just see it as yet another "distrust [insert internet company] with your data" offensive (defensive?) campaign.