That is a very, very fringe alt-science view that so far exists in various pop-sci blogs and informal youtube discussions, rather than in mainstream conferences, journals, and research centers.
I'm not saying it's bad to speculate or write whimsical blog articles about these topics, there's lots of room for creative speculation, but MOND does not respect Lorentz invariance which is basically a deal breaker for virtually all serious researchers. Fewer things have more robust empirical support than Lorentz invariance, so discarding it forces you to say that your violation is always just over the horizon of what is testable (and this horizon keeps getting pushed back). That's generally a discrediting feature of any theory and a huge red flag. Much better to say "you don't know" than to postulate something which requires such massive fine tuning to always be just beyond the horizon of what is testable, but close enough to that horizon to have explanatory power for observed phenomena.
https://phys.org/news/2017-11-evidence-violation-lorentz-inv...
https://asfriedman.physics.ucsd.edu/Papers/Friedman+2020a.pd...