>if they start sticking their fingers into sites and determining whether the site's content is "appropriate" or whatever

They already pick and choose. They have not decided to sit outside of it. Any claim about them not getting involved should be read as tacit approval. Because we know they will drop users they sufficiently disapprove of.

They have done this one time and the CEO said he regretted it.

>I find this abuse horrific and you should speak to a therapist if you think this is okay.

This is unintentionally hilarious. You're not arguing the moral point, you're using the same kind of reasoning that leads to gay conversion therapy. It roughly equates to: "that's not in accord with my social norms, therefore you need professional intervention."

(Perfunctory disclaimer that I don't support caning. I am not arguing for it, I am only pointing out problems with a statement against it.)

> The “get an immediate agent answer then a human expert’s fast-follow” is I think a great idea for many domains

So, like what already happens when my boss asks claude something and I have to pick up the pieces. Except now it's everything he slops about the topic, not just the ones we discuss later?

A: "The vibe at my favorite bar has changed"

B: "You are still perfectly capable of having fun in life"

I don't really get how B follows from A. B is true, but A wasn't implying not-B.

> I don't think this way because I like to collaborate.

Nice passive aggressive dig!

Classic. How is it the case that every self-styled "empath" never is? I just don't know. Probably never will. I just don't have enough empathy to puzzle this one out.

I can agree with you while still agreeing with parent poster that it's basically "git gud"-tier bullying.

Very very few orators can successfully pull off "just fix your problems bro" as anything beyond a generic kick in the pants for the people presently predispositioned to be motivated by one.

I regularly bully my close friends into being better people. It just so happens that I fell down the staircase of life much earlier than a lot of people do. I had to do most of my “midlife crisis” thinking in my early 20s because most of my family died and I had to come out as gay without any support.

Now that I’m in my 30s I have the joy of helping my friends along on this journey called life. Sometimes people just need a gentle nudge up the staircase. Sometimes they need to be carried against their will

I'm trying to figure out how to manage a similar situation.

It's like your friends wanna party raid but they keep going in with incomplete builds

I only got so much patience before I find a new guild

I agree it can feel frustrating and inactionable but it's not bullying, it's a thoughtful well-meaning response. Actually if it makes you feel bad it's a signal it may be worth contemplating more.

It may be well-meaning, but it is clearly not thoughtful.

They aren't saying this tho, they are saying to go to therapy to help solve it.

>Otherwise we are forever dragging each other back in.

I think turning a blind eye to our colleagues' work as if it's morally neutral is what keeps us in that pit.

> But the author's writing style–punctuated with needless character assasinations

I dare say those are the point rather than an side property of writing about quacks' downfalls.

The media serves non-zero inoculation effect against quacks, but their approach to coverage is much more self-indulgent than what anyone brainstorming a coverage approach to maximize their readers' heath literacy would create.

Your post is a masterclass in slippery middle manager yapping.

They tried to punch up a deliverable and didn't even check that their new version served the purpose of that deliverable.

If parent poster's story is even half true, I'm reminded of the phrase "reckless disregard for the truth." This is one of the vast majority of times where it's perfectly legal to be reckless with the truth, but I can't think of a more succinct description of core problem.