3 ms·
No you obviously didn't read it. It writes exactly "OK, they have a stupid AI that is worse than good old filters. OK, they made it react immediately, as an und
by mikekaganski 1y ago
No you obviously didn't read it. It writes exactly "OK, they have a stupid AI that is worse than good old filters. OK, they made it react immediately, as an undoubted authority. But that’s not a big problem, right? They provide a way to appeal! Let me do that."
If you say that it's not a depiction of what someone thinks and does facing something, you just need to improve reading skills.
And basically that wasn't something important in the article; I made it rather clear. Their following catch22 was the most likable thing IMO; that was what I explicitly emphasized.
I wonder why do I write all that, though. If someone just wants to find something irrelevant, and build their criticism on that, there's no way to prevent it.
- charcircuit 1y agoIt was an unnecessary comment to include in the article in my opinion. It doesn't affect the overall story, is potentially libelous, and trivializes the complexity of fighting abuse at scale. I agree it's irrelevant. It makes 0 sense to me to include unless it's backed in truth.
- mikekaganski 1y agoIrrelevant is "lack of references when one describes some reactions", not "this is what I thought, when I faced that; and I described my thoughts and feelings in a post of mine in my own blog dedicated to my thoughts and feelings".
- charcircuit 1y agoFair. I could have raised skepticism of the claim without including the reference to references. But I wanted to make my comment longer, and the bit about references was mentioned the sentence before the sentence before the claim. I also now realize that you are likely the author of the article that was posted, so I will wish you luck in resolving your account issues.