This, also, is not useful to point out every time an article title ends in a question mark. I'm not advocating for articles with titles that end in question marks, only that there is no value in reflexively pointing out "this article's title ends in a question mark" every time it happens: Bettridge's law of headlines exists, the point has been made, and even to the people who haven't heard about it, it doesn't give the reader any insight. I maintain that the only use of that particular comment is to make the person writing it feel smart for knowing a jargon term.

The use of that comment is to point out and perhaps penalize a form of manipulation which hurts discourse, the sensationalized headline.

This is valid in the same way that it is valid to point out when a headline contains a false and self-serving claim.

I don't think anybody is under the slightest illusion that having heard of Betteridge's law demonstrates any particular intelligence.

It does not penalize the article, as even before this concept was given a name it was already clear. The only people it "penalizes" are the people who have to see the comment every single time an article, no matter what the quality level of the content, happens to have such a question-marked title. Think about it this way: the article got voted to some place, and maybe is even on the front page; do you think yelling "Bettridge's law of headlines says 'no'" is changing that vote?

Do you think people reading the comments are going "ah, that is something I had yet to consider about this article; I had previously been curious to know the answer to this deep and burning question, but now that I read this comment, it is clear time that not only am I a fool, but I should down vote this article, all articles like it, and start my own crusade to scream the name of this wonderful law of headlines every time I see such an article".

The best you are getting is "oh, I didn't realize someone had assigned this a funny 'law'... that will be a great trivia item I can being up to demonstrate my epic knowledge of jargon". The result is then just another person in the article comments adding noise. It is nothing more than a way to add mild justification to the seemingly-dying practice of yelling "first": you just need to know, for each article, what bingo terms happen to apply, and then be he first to lay claim to them.

So, now we're getting to the real issue - the titles/content of the articles that get upvoted is extremely poor, not the comments.

Writing the question you mean to answer or that you mean to explain the arguments for and against into your headline is neither sensationalized or misleading.

I think "X (is|are) not helpful" is overused.