You're not negating anything they've said, but given some insight into why the case might be. However the cult of personality and brand still exists and as a result heavily distorts what could appear here.

Saying that someone ought to write better consistently for them to "make its way here" leans completely into the cult of personality.

I think following people would be better served though personal RSS feeds, and letting content rise based on its merit ought to be an HN goal. How that can be achieved, I don't know. What I am saying is that the potential negatives are far far understated than they ought to be.

I think you’re mistaking my comment for an endorsement when it was primarily attempting to reframe and describe the dynamic.

> Saying that someone ought to write better

I did not say someone ought to write better. I described what I believed the dynamic is.

> I think following people would be better served though personal RSS feeds

My point was that this is exactly what people are doing, and that people tend to post content here from the people they follow.

> letting content rise based on its merit ought to be an HN goal

My point was that merit is earned, and people tend to attach weight to certain voices who have already earned it.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying there are no downsides, and I said as much in the original comment.

HN regularly upvotes obscure content from people who are certainly not the center of a cult of personality. I was attempting to explain why I think this is more prevalent with AI and why I think that’s understandable in a landscape filled with slop.