Because the data it presents is not believable

If this is their rationale they should say so, so they can fade into obscurity as soon as possible and leave room for sensible people.

>By that logic they should be printing memos and dumping them in the Hudson, in case some of the people swimming there want to read them.

And if it costed as much as posting on X, they should.

>In either case, they're making this decision based on data that they have

And people take issue precisely with that not making any sense, which leads people to look at stuff like

>clearly the tiny amount of traffic from Twitter is not worth the effort and reputational harm that comes from staying on the platform.

By which I mean "stuff like that statement". Not that they ACTUALLY face any reputational harm (a ludicrous assertion) but that the politics high above have shifted in such a way that they'd agree with something like that.

This betrays their mission and paints a bad picture of their future, which ironically, does incur in reputational harm.

Literally nobody that takes this stance around X has or should have political relevancy to begin with though.

Probably not, but then go ahead and say it.

The problem is they can't really say it, because if their stance is that Musk's management deserves such rejection, then they are cutting their nose to spite their face, and if the abhorrent ones are X users in general, they show themselves to be only on one side of the aisle, removing any legitimacy to their principles.

They went ahead and said it. Literally. And remained completely legitimate.

The problem is that people ignore what they said, so that they can argue made up "illegitimacy".

And yet, no game has problems selling due to these reactions. As a matter of fact, the vast majority of people can't even tell if AI has been used here or there unless told.

I reckon it's just drama paraded by gaming "journalists" and not much else. You will find people expressing concern on Reddit or Bluesky, but ultimately it doesn't matter.

"Literally everyone" can't even agree on whether Polio is bad.

I myself would disagree that CGI itself is a bad thing.

Reddit? Or this site? Sort of? Some people voted for my comment, that surely means that I'm right about something, rather than them just liking it, right?

The analogy would be that you always get upvoted and never get downvoted, which in my experience is definitely not the case on Reddit or Hacker News.

I would have downvoted your comment, except you can't downvote direct replies on HN. ;-)

I presume wasps are conscious. I still don't trust wasps.

Is that how you approach debugging? :)