It's a feedback for whoever was responsible for publishing this article.

Explicit and vocal pushback of unwanted practices is surprisingly effective.

Yeah effective at creating irrelevant bikeshedding arguments and destroy any good will and good faith in the underlying project.

How do you measure its effectiveness in other areas — presumably you thought it would make the other person write all copy and design by hand or something? Did you follow a number of people around and see that they changed their ways and posted hand-designed websites from then on? Or is the claim about being “surprsingly effective” just rhetoric based on wishful thinking and at most anecdotal evidence?

(And btw how is using a template, stock media, or an open source library not a similar form of copout? I could shame people for using a template that’s been overused).

I for one am totally okay with documentation or even front-facing product sites being obviously done with AI. I would rather it be obvious than shame people into trying to make it look organic and fool us, or enter some uncanny valley. Generating AI content at scale is fine as long as you don’t lie about it and pass it off as being done by hand. If shaming people would be “surprisingly effective” at causing them to try to make their AI-generated stuff look more like it was done by hand, would actually be a huge net negative for me. Consider the effect your shaming is actually likely to have, even if it accomplished something!