I see your point, and it is fair to an extent.
However, it also seems like PG is prejudging members linking materials of that sort are in bad faith or will cause negative consequence, which I tend to disagree.
I think Community Moderation Basics already have adequate provisions i.e. Identifying “Bad Faith” Comments, to guide community members and moderators to identify potential issues.
In terms of negative consequences, if that’s a topic brought from somewhere else, it is likely that it is a hot topic at some corner in the internet, and if that source or claim has to be debunked, community members or PG Team would have the perfect opportunity to do so at that time. Banning sources of that sort would prevent PG community to learn and grow as a whole.
In this instance, it did brought up some really good comments from community members, which I very much appreciated
Afterall the “company representatives” are not saying anything directly in this forum so I don’t see impersonation is the concern here, moderators and staffs could always “remind” folks that “That Person in that place is not a verified company rep. in PG POV, treat the information with grain of salt and not to see it as the official response of the company”.
I wouldn’t think it is a loophole. In short, although I see your good intentions, I think PG community already has the tools (policies / procedures), wisdom and most importantly, moderation to manage this kind of situations.