Am I correct that the strongest conclusion here is that it's not writing quality that explains the poor performance of change.org petitions?

This scenario may have never happened in a coffee shop, but it happens every day when you use cloud software: "Try writing with AI", "Check out our new feed", "New! Remix this photo!" You don't have to use the new features, but neither is it silly to be annoyed because it makes things harder.

This would also be a much safer world than one where a monolithic superintelligent AGI is running everything.

Agree, depends on the dumbth of the take.

Bad take replies are doing you a favor. Block them now and you won't waste time on less obviously bad takes in the future, nor inflict them on others in your network. Think that's harsh? Try it for a month.

"Oh but this guy replied to me in the thread and the other people in the thread will think he won if I don't reply..."
"Oh but lots of people are liking that post and spreading bad information, I have to correct it..."
No. "Correcter of people who are wrong on the Internet" is not your life's work.

As a frequent user of "show less like this", I appreciate that you're experimenting. Show less really seems to work!

No, but you will have a ton of people second-guessing your battle plans if you don't have a good answer.

Unfollowing here and subscribing their blog helps.

What I mean is that the most skilled and resourceful use custom feeds and labelers and their experience is very much not the default, which implies that that which is popular here is also kinda mid.

I see your roasted brussels and raise you roasted brussels with pomegranate seeds and feta in a pistachio vinaigrette.