That’s the most defeatist argument I’ve heard. “The stories of history are fake, most of the internet is fake, so we’re justified in presenting a made-up story as real, like we’ve been doing all along.”
I’m sorry. I’m not supporting an obvious engagement farm just because it “illustrates something” worthwhile. That’s the fundamental reason why the internet is in such a horrendous state right.
To be clear, I have no problem with stories, or even “embellished history,” if they’re labeled as such. I mean, I know history is a interpreted construct with embellishment, that was middle school history class.
But this is presented as an example of a real human being’s experience. It’s why people are upvoting it.
The ‘sentiment,’ aka the circumstances being lamented, are 100% factual.
The story might not be.
If I write about how I tried and failed to move faster than the speed of light by lighting my farts on fire, the story is fake, but it’s factual. I would not ever be able to move faster than the speed of light by lighting my farts on fire. Everyone can understand that, as long as they have a reference of the amount of energy generated by flaming farts and a reference for what the speed of light is and the amount of energy that it requires to get there.
Renting in the united states requires at minimum 3x the monthly rent to be paid upfront, usually 4x the monthly rent, along with a non-refundable application fee which often is just lost and denied. If I write a story about how a anthropomorphic bunny is having a hard time renting due to not being able to raise enough money on only fans to handle these ridiculous requirements, the story is still factual and makes a point about the real circumstances in this world regardless of the fact anthropomorphic bunnies have not been proven to exist yet.
So yes, it would get upvoted despite taking liberties with the exact details and thus being a fictionalized version of reality that uses facts from reality to make a point.
I suppose the real problem I have with your critique is that it’s pointless to attack an AI version of a meme because of the content of the meme which has been reposted in a million ways by humans before you found your way onto the internet, instead of attacking the fact it’s just an AI powered repost of a true meme.
So yes, it would get upvoted despite taking liberties with the exact details and thus being a fictionalized version of reality that uses facts from reality to make a point.
I call nonsense.
If you replaced “Me” and “I” and “Jeremy” in this post with “anthropomorphic bunny,” making it clear the text is not from a real person, there’s no way it would be on the front page of Lemmy. It wouldn’t have even made it wherever OP saw it.
I suppose the real problem I have with your critique is that it’s pointless to attack an AI version of a meme because of the content of the meme which has been reposted in a million ways by humans before you found your way onto the internet, instead of attacking the fact it’s just an AI powered repost of a true meme.
I find this implausible too.
If it was a meme with a message you didn’t like, would you have issue with an “AI powered repost of a true meme?” You can’t tell me you wouldn’t. Just because you like the message, that its sentiment is true somewhere doesn’t make presenting a fabrication as a real anecdote ethical.
That’s the most defeatist argument I’ve heard. “The stories of history are fake, most of the internet is fake, so we’re justified in presenting a made-up story as real, like we’ve been doing all along.”
I’m sorry. I’m not supporting an obvious engagement farm just because it “illustrates something” worthwhile. That’s the fundamental reason why the internet is in such a horrendous state right.
To be clear, I have no problem with stories, or even “embellished history,” if they’re labeled as such. I mean, I know history is a interpreted construct with embellishment, that was middle school history class.
But this is presented as an example of a real human being’s experience. It’s why people are upvoting it.
And that’s a straight-up lie.
No, people are upvoting it because they can relate with it, and it is factual, regardless of it if happened to a real human.
There’s a word for made up stories misleadingly presented as an authentic human account, and its not “factual.”
I’m not saying it hasn’t happened to a real human either. I agree with the seniment of the story.
The ‘sentiment,’ aka the circumstances being lamented, are 100% factual.
The story might not be.
If I write about how I tried and failed to move faster than the speed of light by lighting my farts on fire, the story is fake, but it’s factual. I would not ever be able to move faster than the speed of light by lighting my farts on fire. Everyone can understand that, as long as they have a reference of the amount of energy generated by flaming farts and a reference for what the speed of light is and the amount of energy that it requires to get there.
Renting in the united states requires at minimum 3x the monthly rent to be paid upfront, usually 4x the monthly rent, along with a non-refundable application fee which often is just lost and denied. If I write a story about how a anthropomorphic bunny is having a hard time renting due to not being able to raise enough money on only fans to handle these ridiculous requirements, the story is still factual and makes a point about the real circumstances in this world regardless of the fact anthropomorphic bunnies have not been proven to exist yet.
So yes, it would get upvoted despite taking liberties with the exact details and thus being a fictionalized version of reality that uses facts from reality to make a point.
I suppose the real problem I have with your critique is that it’s pointless to attack an AI version of a meme because of the content of the meme which has been reposted in a million ways by humans before you found your way onto the internet, instead of attacking the fact it’s just an AI powered repost of a true meme.
I call nonsense.
If you replaced “Me” and “I” and “Jeremy” in this post with “anthropomorphic bunny,” making it clear the text is not from a real person, there’s no way it would be on the front page of Lemmy. It wouldn’t have even made it wherever OP saw it.
I find this implausible too.
If it was a meme with a message you didn’t like, would you have issue with an “AI powered repost of a true meme?” You can’t tell me you wouldn’t. Just because you like the message, that its sentiment is true somewhere doesn’t make presenting a fabrication as a real anecdote ethical.