The page is entirely AI-generated and each piece is written with the same silly thesis (things used to be better and then they ruined everything). I see why this works, but it's frankly disappointing to see so many smart people fall for it over and over again. There's no human on the other end of these essays that believes these things. They're not true and not meant to be true. Yes, they're what we want to hear, but that shouldn't be enough.

As to why it exists: when generation of content costs next to nothing, I think that question is harder to pin. The basic answer is "clicks".

This page [0] didn't read as very AI-generated to me. However, it had an interesting link:

> within days of closing a Cornell partner on the new board emailed the CEO to ask, "Is there fraud going on???"

(Italicised part is the link) linking to [1].

When I search that page, I cannot find the word 'fraud' let alone anything like that quote.

It's highly suspicious when a linked claim does not support the claim.

[0]: https://www.worseonpurpose.com/p/your-cookware-got-worse-on-...

[1]: https://fortune.com/2024/11/19/crock-pot-explosion-cornell-c...

> They're not true and not meant to be true.

The two companies I looked up were accurately described, according to my own experience with them.

The site may be slop and poorly made, but that doesn't invalidate that consumer products of a given quality tier are lower quality than they used to be. People like to see it confirmed because it matches their lived experience.