Another online forum I frequent bans drive-by posts, defined as a post with a link to an external article or video, with no commentary or discussion. The idea is if you want to initiate a discussion, how about summarizing the issue you think important addressed in the linked article, and thus actually starting the thread discussion in a meaningful way.
If you start threads with drive-by posts, why?
What do you want to discuss?
Do you ignore such drive-by posts?
I try to.
I do, yes.
Personally my default view, anywhere and everywhere, of a post that is nothing but a link to an article is an assumption, right or wrong, that the goal of the post is to drive traffic to the provided link. An advertisement, basically.
I kind of equate this with the thumbs down button. I tend not to reply to drive but posts but sometimes the OP doesn’t find it interesting but thinks someone will. The other alternative would be to say, " you might find this interesting." Sometimes I do reply. Maybe a category for drive by posts.
I dunno sometimes there are articles that speak for themselves, No commentary needed.
I do. Often.
Man, you must be a good shot to hit a fence post driving by it. 
But only if you read them. If someone says, “You should read this…” without giving me a reason to read it, I don’t bother. I treat that the same as click-bait ads on web pages.
If, however, they tell me, “You should read this to learn about …” or “You should read this so we can discuss the question of…” then, I might actually read itl
Yeah, I usually ignore those, unless an actual conversation gets rolling. I don’t like click-bait. Starting a new thread with a link but nothing else is like leaving a brown paper bag full of dog poop on my front porch. I don’t know what it is until I open it.
I appreciate the folks who give a summary, a TL;DR, or some form on commentary on the article they’re sharing. If I’m intrigued, I can always click the link, but I don’t like rewarding cheap thrill web journalists with fantasy headlines.
Same as videos that say, “watch until the end.”
If someone can not, or will not mention why a link should be visited, it seems to me unwise to visit it. It’s analogous to the companion subject mentioned here, the " watch this video to the end". Personally, I’m very weary of materials loaded with filler where you don’t get what you watched for, or get to the end of the video only to realize there was no there there.
Example: Headline: “Nasa’s huge new discovery!” but 10 minutes in I am still listening to a review of the history of NASA , - I’m gone,- never to view that presenter again.
Manipulation actually IS offensive.
or a really bad driver 
A similar annoyance: Twitter, tweets that go something like “Gov confiscation guns in Montana. Gun owner arrested”, no link, no source.
Which begins the exchange like:
me: Do you have a link to validate the assertion?
nimrod: You don’t know how to use Google?
me: You posted the tweet, where did YOU get the information.
nimrod: Go find it yourself, I’m not here to teach you how to use Google.
Keeping in mind that nimrod and I are on the same side of the firearm issue.
nimrod is a generalization and not the real name
Possible downside to sleeping with a gun right next to you: Lake Barrington man charged after accidentally shooting himself in leg during bad dream
Now that’s just insult to injury. Charging him for not having a valid FOID card and discharging a gun. I thought SCOTUS did away with this FOID card nonsense?