[gruez]

>Absolute insanity from other commenters here. I totally disagree about it being hard to read - it’s fine.

>And others bitching about being instructed to read the whole thing, clearly didn’t.

The problem isn't that it's indecipherable, it's that the reader feels their time isn't being respected. If the author (seemingly) can't be bothered to put the time into writing a blog post, resorting to AI generated slop, why should readers devote time into reading it in its entirety?

>Which, you know, others would have found out if they read before commenting.

Part of your job as a writer is to get your readers to actually read what you're writing. If you want to write about how Trump sucks with the aim of convincing Trump voters to change their minds, but start off with a diatribe about how Trump voters are brainwashed cultists, that's poor writing even if it's theoretically not "hard to read".

[_fw]

Maybe my slop detector isn’t as sharp as yours, maybe the antagonist in me appreciated the author’s tone.

I guess I just liked the article!

[gruez]

It's not hard to find examples, eg. for chained negations:

>California. Not Geneva. Not Zurich. Santa Clara County. Let that land for a second.

>That's not an interpretation. That's not reading between lines. That's LiveKit's own [...]

>Not by breaking Signal's encryption. Not by going to Signal. By extracting [...]

>You don't get notified. You don't get to contest it. You find out [...]

>Not a single anonymous source. Not a single leaked document. Not a single interpretation [...]

>An ordinary person — not an activist, not a whistleblower, not anyone doing anything wrong

[_fw]

“You’re absolutely right! I should have…”

Not sure how those passed me by.