I can't remember where at this point, but decades ago I heard this kind of thing called "insight porn" and have myself been guilty of it for much of my life. It's endemic to web communities composed of relatively smart people, at least if we take "smart" to mean something like intellectually curious and having right tail levels of raw cognitive ability, rather than meaning anything you believe is more likely to be true.
1) The vast majority of matter in the Universe is invisible. We've tried looking for it in a variety of ways for decades but we can't find it but we're sure it's there.
2) Our model of the Universe is slightly incorrect. It works in many many cases but not in interesting outlier situations. eg. at very low accelerations.
Misapplication of Occam's razor. LCDM also needs multiple things: non-interacting dark matter + a fine-tuned distribution of DM that cannot be a priori predicted from any observations, but only post-hoc fitted after observation. By contrast, MOND has successfully predicted rotation curves (and lots more) from the visible matter alone.
You can't naively apply Occam's razor to two theories that both fail some set of observations. However, as a scientific theory, MOND has a better track record of successful predictions.
And DM fails to explain flat rotation curves out to 1000 parsecs, or how MOND was able to make so many successful a priori predictions where DM has to be curve fitted after the fact. This paper is just the latest to refute LCDM, but no doubt proponents will add yet more parameters to correct for this failure, as they have done many times in the past when observations refuted DM predictions.
Honestly, you and many others have fallen for the DM propaganda. Both DM and MOND are problematic and fail in various ways. DM is not nearly as successful a scientific theory as most think, and MOND is not nearly as problematic:
From Galactic Bars to the Hubble Tension: Weighing Up the Astrophysical Evidence for Milgromian Gravity, https://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/14/7/1331
I've mentioned elsewhere here that astrophysicsts tend to prefer DM because they like particles and mathematical elegance, and astronomers are more open to MOND because they like theories with few parameters that make successful predictions (a reductive generalization, but broadly true I think). JWST has validated many MOND predictions, so I hope people open their minds a little more now, but as I said, neither theory is fully satisfactory in the end.
Edit: the author of this post is an astronomer that has been working in this field for a long time and he posted another article that reviews MOND and LCDM with some history:
https://tritonstation.com/2023/01/05/question-of-the-year-an...
Angela Collier talks about Dark Matter here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbmJkMhmrVI
And talks more about how often MOND is brought up in comments on her own video:
"Just tweak the laws of physics, bozos!" is a really easy idea for laymen to latch on to, which is why you see so much interest in it among science enthusiasts.
MOND predicts "no dark matter" if the acceleration regime is high. Most galaxies that havd "very little dark matter" are in the high acceleration regime.
Most of the others seem to be susceptible to observational error (e.g. ultra diffuses). Galaxy rotation curves measurements are highly sensitive to orientation of the rotational axis and distance to us (you're gonna have a hard time measuring it if the galaxy is face on)
However, the vast majority do, and the linked paper says that the ones they are describing are extremely rare.
Worth noting that recently (when couple of months is considered recent), she mentioned that she had falling out with MOND (due to some new study coming to ger attention).