This is not strictly logical but I have a feeling I'm not alone.
Often the title sort of explains the whole topic (ie lack of parking in NY, or astronomers found the biggest quasar yet), then folks chirp in with their experiences and insight which are sometimes pretty wild.
Yet I too often am looking for the discussion. When I see there's high quality discourse or valuable experiences being shared, I'm more likely to read the full content of the article.
Me too. That is why sometimes I take the raw comment thread and paste it into a LLM, the result is a grounded article. It contains a diversity of positions and debunking, but the slop is removed. Social threads + LLMs are an amazing combo, getting the LLM polish + the human grounded perspective.
If I was in the place of reddit or HN I would try to generate lots of socially grounded articles. They would be better than any other publication because they don't have the same conflict of interests.
Harvest said comments and create a 1h, 1d, 1 week, all time digest.
(I don't know if Rust is overhyped, it's calmed down again but at one point a recurring post on HN was "solved problem X... but written in Rust!", where the latter was the main selling point instead of e.g. the 10x performance boost that a lot of applications get from a rewrite to a lower-level language)
Even the routine posts about uv seem to have settled down from that, honestly. The "written in Rust" fanfare is mostly contained to GitHub READMEs now. I still get the sense that it occupies quite a bit of mindshare in the background, though.