Hi there. I understand your perspective on the matter. On the other hand, I don’t consider this community active enough to be too restrictive on content. This place gets an average of one post a day. Op has made comments, indicating they’re an actual human being, and the post has not actually broken any rules.
Considering that this post has brought forth actual discussion, I’m going to leave it up.
You’re welcome to post other content from other preferred sources if you like.
Please see this comment. Even in the event this source isn’t LLM-generated, it’s bottom-of-the-barrel garbage; it’s a Blogger “written by” some rando who doesn’t even put in the effort to cite a single source. “Generating a discussion” is exactly the sort of poor, engagement-centric rationale that awful social media companies use to allow and promote dangerous, unsourced crap. I moderate a community for veganism, a cause I deeply believe in and want discussed and thought about. I would remove trash like this even if it were saying everything I wanted to hear and attracting thousands to the community and generating the biggest discussion in recent memory on the basis that I don’t want our community to be a part of this unprecedented era of misinformation where vibes are treated a substitute for critical thinking. I don’t give a single shit about engagement in the communities I moderate if it means platforming uncited, likely LLM-generated swill like this, and I feel like that’s a reasonable expectation to hold other moderators to.
The number of posts per day shouldn’t matter either; if anything, that should make it easier to vet posts like this. If a post can’t meet some reasonable minimum standard of quality, it shouldn’t exist. Lastly, “if you don’t want to see garbage, drown it out with quality” categorically doesn’t work. This is a failed experiment. Literally every platform that allows garbage (see: every major social media platform) devolves into garbage because it’s so, so much easier to create and then unthinkingly post – then the overwhelming majority don’t actually read it to evaluate its quality. If a platform gets big enough on the back of quality posts and isn’t maintained, the quality content inevitably gets outcompeted by slop. It shouldn’t be the user’s job to make sure that better things get posted; it should be the moderator’s to foster an environment where quality actually matters.
(I never insinuated OP is a bot; I said the article itself is likely LLM-generated.)
Hi there. I understand your perspective on the matter. On the other hand, I don’t consider this community active enough to be too restrictive on content. This place gets an average of one post a day. Op has made comments, indicating they’re an actual human being, and the post has not actually broken any rules.
Considering that this post has brought forth actual discussion, I’m going to leave it up.
You’re welcome to post other content from other preferred sources if you like.
“Today I learned made up shit from AI slop.”
Please see this comment. Even in the event this source isn’t LLM-generated, it’s bottom-of-the-barrel garbage; it’s a Blogger “written by” some rando who doesn’t even put in the effort to cite a single source. “Generating a discussion” is exactly the sort of poor, engagement-centric rationale that awful social media companies use to allow and promote dangerous, unsourced crap. I moderate a community for veganism, a cause I deeply believe in and want discussed and thought about. I would remove trash like this even if it were saying everything I wanted to hear and attracting thousands to the community and generating the biggest discussion in recent memory on the basis that I don’t want our community to be a part of this unprecedented era of misinformation where vibes are treated a substitute for critical thinking. I don’t give a single shit about engagement in the communities I moderate if it means platforming uncited, likely LLM-generated swill like this, and I feel like that’s a reasonable expectation to hold other moderators to.
The number of posts per day shouldn’t matter either; if anything, that should make it easier to vet posts like this. If a post can’t meet some reasonable minimum standard of quality, it shouldn’t exist. Lastly, “if you don’t want to see garbage, drown it out with quality” categorically doesn’t work. This is a failed experiment. Literally every platform that allows garbage (see: every major social media platform) devolves into garbage because it’s so, so much easier to create and then unthinkingly post – then the overwhelming majority don’t actually read it to evaluate its quality. If a platform gets big enough on the back of quality posts and isn’t maintained, the quality content inevitably gets outcompeted by slop. It shouldn’t be the user’s job to make sure that better things get posted; it should be the moderator’s to foster an environment where quality actually matters.
(I never insinuated OP is a bot; I said the article itself is likely LLM-generated.)