[lliiffee]

They prevent that by hosting it somewhere that no one can find it's associated with you. Not saying that's ethical, but it does prevent immediate harm to your brand, unless people somehow remembered on clicking the link when they see the actual article. (Which would still be a tiny fraction.)

[Kluny]

I don't think that's enough, to be honest. I mean, people in various demographics all kind of get their news from the same places - reddit (various subreddits), the verge, vox, breitbart, fox, whatever your flavor is, your target audience can be found there on the regular. I'd be hesitant to test an article idea on, for example, cracked.com, then publish the real thing on /r/pcmasterrace. If I'm writing for that audience, I'd expect them to be in both places and I'd expect them to remember.

[savanaly]

I dunno man, the internet is a pretty big place. If you're hitting the level of popularity with this stuff that of the people who see your first fake news article, a significant portion of them then see it when it's published in an unrelated place the next month then this whole discussion might be moot.