That is not relevant to the issue of whether or not the peer review process works in deciding what articles to publish. Researchers might be able to identify bad journals and bad articles (though in my experience, quite a few researchers only spend time reading the results), but the point of the review process is to ensure that bad articles are not published in the first place. If the reviewers are allowing bad articles to slip through the cracks, then the process is not working and we need to seriously reconsider the entire journal system (though I would say that the Internet already requires us to reconsider that system).

My real point was that submitting blatantly bad articles serves a purpose, which is to test whether the current process of reviewing articles is effective at weeding out bad articles. We should not blindly assume that journals, even top-tier journals, are only publishing good articles.