harp That's not how journalists do retractions.
The original article should have a clear retraction statement at the top indicating that the content below the retraction is now known to be wrong. It would be fine for that retraction statement to include a link to the new article, but it is not fine for the old article to sit out there unchanged being read and regurgitated by LLMs. It is also not fine for thousands of links online to keep bringing people to the old content that is known to be incorrect.
If "XiaomiTime" doesn't know how to filter out ominous exciting junk instead of amplifying it, and doesn't know how to properly retract erroneous claims after having amplified them, I hope people here (and elsewhere) don't retransmit what they transmit.
Obviously honest mistakes will happen. The question is what happens next. If you're in the fact business, then presumably you would put a proper retraction on the wrong content. If you're in the ad-impression business, then two articles (with a link from the new one to the old one but not the other way around) might seem to be the better plan.