That is not a repost, this is an other article from ProPublica
Ah, I just assume that was a slightly different title for the same article. Maybe a mod made the same assumption.
Are you joking with me? They are using a paraphrased title.
Well, the first part is. But, I don’t know what “munching” means. The second part of the Ars title actually says what it’s about. Don’t get me wrong, I can probably make a guess. But when you’re scrolling social media, I don’t think anyone is stopping to think about what a title really means. If it’s not obvious at first glace most people are just scrolling by. The Ars title, at least to me, skims as “AI bad” since those are the words anchoring each end of the title, that’s probably enough all by itself to get some people to upvote.
I am really curious, what sort of evidence you want/expect to see?
Literally anything vaguely conclusive. I’m not saying you should go find more evidence for me or anything. I’m just trying to explain why I don’t find your evidence here convincing.
I suspect that Reddit has more than enough money to be competently shitty. So, if they are doing what you suggest, unless they fuck up or decide they don’t care, you might not be able to find solid evidence.
No.
One thing getting more upvotes than another isn’t somehow evidence that reddit is manipulating anything. There’s no immutible law that the original source of something should naturally get more upvotes than anything else. I find that the opposite is most often the case, even when the re-blogged story is crap.