Not that it matters, but I'm a guy who has been one of the many 'silent readers' on TrueReddit for a long, long time. Probably since the start and I barely, if ever, comment.
I legitimately hate when someone posts their own content. It's very against the spirit of this subreddit. And they never, ever post anything interesting.
Who describes their own work as 'insightful'? What kind of scientific author writes 'inviting evidence-based debate on the levers that matter'?
Evidence-based debate? Individuals who take themselves seriously only ever engage in evidence-based debate. Anything else is conjecture, fancy, imagination and fantasy. All very fun, all very useful to the human experience but they have no place in serious conversation.
Correct. I didn't make a single effort to read your nonsense because the summary is so vapid and lacking in content I decided to write this emotional response instead.
I don't want more slop written by AI with these fucking buzzwords, Mods. I'm not an important member and I don't contribute but I am not the only user on TrueReddit who is SICK AND TIRED OF THESE NAVEL GAZING SELF POSTS ON SUBSTACK.
I agree it's a kinda bad summary, I'll try to do better next time. I just don't understand why posting smth you wrote is not welcomed here.
What is the difference between an article by journalist vs a standalone blog? Like I'm not selling you anything or promoting some company. I'm just looking for people who want to read my thoughts and discuss my ideas. What's wrong with that?
It is insane I am participating in this tired old argument with yet one more internet stranger who seems to have misunderstood how the entire catalogue of scientific information we call 'knowledge' was put together. I am certain that nothing you have written is unique, interesting or consequential in any way, to any one, ever. I mean every word that that sentence.
Now you're going to make me prove that your ideas are not worthy of consideration, don't say a brother didn't warn you;
Here's how I know that
Title: The Internet Is Broken
My Thoughts: Ah, just like Kim Kardashian and Nikki Benz and everyone else broke the internet, one more fool on Substack thinks this is catchy and cool. The person who wrote this document understands that their title might be the most important thing to their relevancy. In a world awash with inane bullshit, you gotta be catchy and 'The Internet Is Broken' was their best shot? They obviously didn't think long or hard about that and they certainly didn't do any googling to figure out how their Signal is going to get lost in all the Noise surrounding The Internet is Broken.
Summary: Relevant here because it’s a systems-level analysis tying Big Tech’s incentives (ads, lock-in, bundling, platform taxes) to concrete user harms. Then asks whether the AI wave actually flips those incentives or entrenches them. Insightful because it names specific mechanisms and sets testable predictions, inviting evidence-based debate on the levers that matter.
My Thoughts: I don't really know what you're saying. I think it's 'big tech sucks. Will AI fix it?'. I have seen zero evidence that AI is fixing anything. It shows some promise, but one more masturbatory article regarding the titanic battle of Evil Google and MyBoyfriendisAI gets me to react as I did earlier. I've got this far so I paused respond at this exact second and I attempted to read your article.
Summary of Actual Article Reading Experience: Technology has stagnated and we haven't done anything interesting since Steve Jobs (wrong. the first iPhone is the same shape as the current gen and nothing else. What a bad take). Capital is chasing AI (boring, this is everywhere). This is where I really begin to start scrolling and ignoring you. I read your title - sucks - read your summary -don't really know what I'm about to read - reading your article - I'm bored and it's the same old trite bullshit everyone else is chatGPT'ing together. I keep scrolling - tech is evil, zooming in on specific criminals - what is the point of this article? I hope the conclusion sticks it.
Holy shit, the conclusion is the same as the rest of this junk. It ends up two questions it never really tackles. Two questions that it actually answered , embarrassingly enough
What's sustaining the old economy and Big Tech Dominance?
How exactly will the advancement of AI reshape these conditions?
I'm going to quote you:
"Two years ago, authorities from 17 states filed a lawsuit against Amazon for systematically suppressing competition"
That's how. It's right there. You (chatGPT?) wrote this fucking thing and you're asking questions at the end that the body answered. Dig into this part, let's see how deep the rot goes. that's an interesting article.
Same for #2, but you gotta work a little harder with what you've laid out.
Look at your Y Combinator graph. 66% of the money is somehow tied to AI. Do you think people who have money are interested in making more money, or donating this insanely expensive technology for the purposes of good? Didn't I just finish reading the Litany of Evil? Isn't their evidence aplenty that, at least so far, we've completely fucked up our technological process in the name of greed and watching thirst trap TikTok videos? Didn't some asshole just rent an entire historical location for a wedding? Get this a little more organized and punchy and it's an article too.
My Summary: The title was uninspired, uninteresting and unrelated to the article. Your own summary was somehow worse than the title. The article itself is confused and very obviously has been edited by no one. I don't even know how to interpret your tone. Is this a journal entry? Am I supposed to view with this any kind of academic rigour at all? Was I supposed to have fun or be horrified? I honestly don't know.
Now I get to do the Finishing Move - you wrote this entirely with AI, didn't you? It feels like AI to me and your summary was so far removed from the content of your article I am certain that's AI too.
That's why it sucks. That's why this shit can't be on here. Because I'm a busy man who has many, many other things I should be attending to and your fucking AI articles are making TrueReddit a shittier, more polluted community.
I interact with social media for ~30 mins a day and I spent my whole wad typing out this OLD SCHOOL NO AI response. Because for some reason I cannot shake the foolish notion that if I can get even one of you self obsessed assholes to fuck off and do something of consequence this will have all been worthwhile.
13
u/10yearbang 6d ago
Not that it matters, but I'm a guy who has been one of the many 'silent readers' on TrueReddit for a long, long time. Probably since the start and I barely, if ever, comment.
I legitimately hate when someone posts their own content. It's very against the spirit of this subreddit. And they never, ever post anything interesting.
Who describes their own work as 'insightful'? What kind of scientific author writes 'inviting evidence-based debate on the levers that matter'?
Evidence-based debate? Individuals who take themselves seriously only ever engage in evidence-based debate. Anything else is conjecture, fancy, imagination and fantasy. All very fun, all very useful to the human experience but they have no place in serious conversation.
Correct. I didn't make a single effort to read your nonsense because the summary is so vapid and lacking in content I decided to write this emotional response instead.
I don't want more slop written by AI with these fucking buzzwords, Mods. I'm not an important member and I don't contribute but I am not the only user on TrueReddit who is SICK AND TIRED OF THESE NAVEL GAZING SELF POSTS ON SUBSTACK.
Ban this bullshit.