I’m saying you gave a bunch of “citations” that don’t support your claim. And your original claim is TikTok the first party boosted content with tons of fake upvotes to appear more viral, which you seem to have modified to a much weaker “they knowingly allowed third party bots to fester in order to appear more viral” in your reply.
Now, does either of the original strong claim or the subsequent weak claim match reality? It’s anyone’s guess, I’m leaning on likely for the latter and maybe for the former. But that’s not the point. Giving fake citations to make one’s argument appear stronger is what irks me, and again ironically, it’s almost a parallel of appearing more viral with fake likes.
Edited to add: your comment here is a perfect example of two problems on HN: using citations to give the impression of being well-supported when the citations say something else (occasionally the exact opposite); and lately, using AI slop as evidence.
Now, does either of the original strong claim or the subsequent weak claim match reality? It’s anyone’s guess, I’m leaning on likely for the latter and maybe for the former. But that’s not the point. Giving fake citations to make one’s argument appear stronger is what irks me, and again ironically, it’s almost a parallel of appearing more viral with fake likes.
Edited to add: your comment here is a perfect example of two problems on HN: using citations to give the impression of being well-supported when the citations say something else (occasionally the exact opposite); and lately, using AI slop as evidence.