My feeling is that the only reason HN doesn't have a guideline rule forbidding cites to "Upton's Law" is that there isn't space for it. It's tired, snarky, provides no insight, and never takes the conversation in any interesting direction.
The comment you're replying to observes that a bunch of researchers say that the fraudulent paper simply isn't that important in the field. You can contest that claim! Maybe they're totally wrong! But you can't do so with Upton Sinclair, because Upton knows nothing at all about how Alzheimers research works, and when you deploy that quote, you give the strong impression that you don't either.
I don't think it flows as well as just "tropes." (And I'm allergic to Oxford commas, but so many of my thoughtful friends who care about language use them that I've started to think that's just my problem.)
I started with 'tropes' but then thought people might try to language-lawyer this (what kind of trope? not all tropes are negative! this isn't a trope! etc) so I scoured scripture for a representative variant and that sounded about right.
I like using the word 'internet' in moderation comments as a sort of mild pejorative—it nicely expresses the shared semi-embarrassment we all feel about whatever this is.
I think it helps take pressure off people personally—because even if you're being scolded, you know..."internet" - how high can the bar really get. It's scolding on a curve.
