Your position is that Lemmy is immune to the following: company creates an account on Lemmy, spams communities with low effort content (possibly created by AI or automated processes), attracts viewers, then sells the account to another company as part of an advertising campaign. This position can be defeated if the above happens even one time. I’m refusing to debate you on this not because you’re infallibly correct, but because it’s not worth the investment of time. Any idiot can see it’s an indefensible position. Have a day. 🫱
No, the same vulnerability does not exist here.
There are different vulnerabilities here, but this one isn’t there.
Your position is that Lemmy is immune to the following: company creates an account on Lemmy, spams communities with low effort content (possibly created by AI or automated processes), attracts viewers, then sells the account to another company as part of an advertising campaign. This position can be defeated if the above happens even one time. I’m refusing to debate you on this not because you’re infallibly correct, but because it’s not worth the investment of time. Any idiot can see it’s an indefensible position. Have a day. 🫱