So instead of being fooled by fake and misleading headlines written by journalists, you can get fooled by fake and misleading headlines written by Twitter users? If you insist on not reading the article, I’m not sure one of those is worse than the other.
Being fooled by Twitter users is worse as they can link to reputable sources (that usually wouldn't post clickbait/bad headings). There's also little incentive for twitter users to not post misleading headlines, while (some) journalists/news sites are trying to build a reputation of reputability. Yes, it would be solved by clicking the article, but you shouldn't have to click every article to make sure the poster isn't lying about the content.
Okay probably not, but you never know with that petty sociopath. Regardless I ditched Twitter the day Musky took over. It's not like I used it much anyway, and I ditched FB during the aftermath of T***p's election before he even took office. I don't miss either one.
Not sure what part you don't understand, but I'll try and help:
Snopes (a fact checking website) shows that the way links are displayed nowadays (the new link presentation or new way links are presented) on X (formerly Twitter) lacks any sense -> snopes shows the folly of it.
Thanks! My previous interpretation:
Snopes Shows™ - company related to film industry
Folly™ - name of another company, surprisingly there is no comma or "and" between them
X's - unknown high number or Twitter
New Link Presentation™ - Proprietary feature made by big tech company I have never heard about
So it looks like Clickbaity Capitalisation Of Every Word fooled me. IMO title should look like:
"Snopes shows the folly of new link presentation on X"