I shared the one I discovered. Please don't take this the wrong way, but sincerely -- how much investigation do you expect someone to do?

If you are willing to share some controversial or questionable piece of news on HN, it might be worth looking for alternative sources. Is it that hard to do a couple of searches rather than submitting the low-quality one with zero extra effort? Do you not want to be better informed yourself anyways?

While the headline was imperfect, the article had the key piece up-front: someone submitted a bill with this premise. That was enough for my needs.

If the community is interested in the topic, typically the comments point to more germane information, backstory, and other data that supports/refutes what an article says. That's a healthy behavior, and it's why online communities remain popular.

Do you think the community and dialogue would, on average, improve if submission quality was increased?

That's what the voting buttons are for.

Submission quality is in the eye of the beholder.

It takes community effort to make up for poor quality submissions. Effort that could be better spent.

A number of people have attempted to give you kind and constructive feedback. You appear immune to it.

(Me: Checks HN karma.)

I'll give your opinion the respect it deserves.

"I spam HN with links of widely varying quality, some of which are flagged as trash and some of which are found useful. Therefore, kind and constructive criticism offered to me by multiple HN users is of no value."

I mean okay

I will waste no time putting your advice into action.

This is exactly the kind of comment and discourse that is not HN worthy. You might want to do some introspecting

How is it questionable?

LOL. Teslarati is a "low quality source"?