Yes, it's a frustratingly common practice to read a headline, think of something you want to say based on that. Come to the comments, flick open the article to briefly check the comment isn't incompatible.
Then upon finding the comment completely off-topic, post it anyway with the disclaimer, "hehe, I thought this would be about <topic they had always intended to talk about>".
Sometimes it'll just be a way to show off they know about some obscure other meaning. In other cases like this one it's just because they want to rant about something else entirely.
I'm sure someone will dig through my post history to find I've done the same, but I have earnestly tried to cut down on it, because it's a very frustrating experience for anyone who did want to engage with the article as written, not the article as imagined.
It would be interesting to see basic protection for this built into a platform. Only let users comment if they've clicked on the link, + X seconds where X is the minimum amount of time it should take to read the article.
It would be impossible to reach mass popularity, but I can see it gaining a following among people like us who see it as a positive.
Then upon finding the comment completely off-topic, post it anyway with the disclaimer, "hehe, I thought this would be about <topic they had always intended to talk about>".
Sometimes it'll just be a way to show off they know about some obscure other meaning. In other cases like this one it's just because they want to rant about something else entirely.
I'm sure someone will dig through my post history to find I've done the same, but I have earnestly tried to cut down on it, because it's a very frustrating experience for anyone who did want to engage with the article as written, not the article as imagined.