2 ms·
Authors aren't obligated to let strangers publish content on their site, any more than you're obligated to let me exercise my free speech by spraypainting messa
by nvme0n1p1 3mo ago
Authors aren't obligated to let strangers publish content on their site, any more than you're obligated to let me exercise my free speech by spraypainting messages on your house. You're not being gatekept from the conversation. You can participate in the conversation by publishing on your own site, just like the author has.
- slopinthebag 3mo ago[flagged]
- auggierose 3mo agoI am pretty sure you cannot send 1000 high value AI generated emails.
- dijksterhuis 3mo agoi believe the GP is probably acutely aware of that considering they were quite obviously being sarcastic
- nvme0n1p1 3mo agoThe author is a person and they get to decide what they want out of life. Even if you disagree. If you get to decide how they live their life, can I decide how you live yours? Why wouldn't you want spraypainted messages which bring real value to your house?
- tikhonj 3mo agoI mean, if you wrote an article like "the whole premise of disallowing people to spray-paint your house is daft"... The real point isn't that they're "obligated" to allow AI-generated comments, but that they're being something of a hypocrite.
- nvme0n1p1 3mo agoThey aren't contradictary. A better analogy would be if they wrote an article like "the whole premise of banning spraypaint is daft", they still wouldn't want random strangers spraypainting their bedroom. "Dogs should be legal to have as pets" yet "I don't own a dog" "Banning sushi is daft" yet "I don't want sushi smeared on my house" "Checking for human writing is daft" yet "I don' want strangers to be able to SSH to my webserver and edit the HTML files with their comments"