Do these posts just get upvoted due to the graphics/animations? I find this site incredibly difficult to read with things re-playing as you scroll up and down and the articles I've read from here are often light on details. The graphics seem very AI-generated (overlapping text and other little issues) which makes me think the whole thing is from an LLM.

While this post does have some interesting information, I have to wade through distracting animations that seem "off" which makes me questions all of it.

> Do these posts just get upvoted due to the graphics/animations?

I don't think so. It's more likely that they're upvoted as a signal-boost; convene here to talk about bad government tech.

Some submissions are less about the subject matter than they are about providing a space to talk about only the subject in general. I've found this to be the case when the content is AI-generated.

Yeah, this site has been posted a few times recently, and there is something just very odd about the site design and the writing.

For example, this post seems unhinged at best: https://www.sambent.com/the-engineer-who-tried-to-put-age-ve...

It's upvoted because the message is "the administration bad." Which, heuristically, is the correct take most of the time.

I didn't even realise it was an article. I thought the grid thing at the top was just an index page linking out to other pages.

I can only presume it's designed for people who's attention will not be kept by sparse but fitting graphics and a well written article.

I can't read any of it, but the other comment's descriptions sound like the new mandatory Russian Max app, so it isn't without precedent.

Speaking for myself unless I know the site and like how they do things, my default these days is a reader view.

It helps a lot!

In this case it helped me lose interest in the article within about 20 seconds.