I'm surprised to read an obviously AI written article ("This isn't about efficiency—it's about extraction") from a tech/news site. Does anyone else find this weird? It make me question the editors note about how much background research was actually done.
Also, am I going crazy or do the "comment" and "share" buttons under the header just tick up but don't allow you to actually do anything? This feels like a vibe-coded website but it could be Firefox being weird.
HeyHey. The website uses Ghost right now, and a lit based web components catalogue. Some features are not yet entirely carved out. The commenting system being one of them. Components are ready, but some integration work has to be done. We also want to enable highlighting stuff directly, so people can comment on specific referenced stuff...
The commenting APIs in ghost are a little obscure.
The easiest way to notice it is its excessive use of what Wikipedia calls "negative parallel construction". [1] It's a super common genai tic
> This isn't about efficiency—it's about extraction
> The problem isn't your connection to Vodafone—it's Vodafone's restrictive connections to the rest of the internet.
> Vodafone's exit from public peering isn't an isolated technical decision—it's part of a broader pattern of large telecoms trying to reshape internet economics in their favor
The more obnoxious signs though is the excessive length, loose structure, repetition, and lack of serious editing. Writing ~3000 words used to take quite a bit of effort, so you'd need to be at least a strong enough writer to organize and structure your thoughts to make it that far. Now it's so easy anyone can put out tons of generated content on whatever topic they want.
