There’s a certain type you’ll find on every group that is not heavily moderated. FB groups as well. The hundred thousand-post target goal thought leader. The walking wall of text and hurriedly googled links with nothing behind it. The guy whose primary talent is endurance, not thought. They’re like intellectual treadmills: lots of motion, zero progress. Losing an argument? Just vanish for a day and reappear elsewhere like nothing happened. Never a retraction, never a concession, just the endless churn of half-baked takes, as if quantity will someday disguise the quality. It’s the digital version of a toddler covering their eyes and thinking they’re invisible. They confuse being persistent with being right. They think having the last word means they’ve won, never realizing everyone else stopped replying because it wasn’t worth the effort. Post count is not seniority. Ten thousand wrong answers do not sum to one correct one. And silence after being disproven isn’t dignified, it’s just cowardice in slow motion. The surprising thing however is how the make people who could think, if they wanted to, stay watching the paddling pool like worried guardians. Observers who might otherwise engage in meaningful discussion instead become bystanders, caught between morbid fascination and frustration at the spectacle.
I’ve lived in Colombia longer now than anywhere else besides where I grew up. Years ago, I quit all the expat groups.Not because I didn’t want to connect, I did, but because a tiny handful of people made up 95% of the posts. Same names. Same rants. Same tired “advice” recycled endlessly. It wasn’t an expat community, it was a monologue with a comment section. And yes, I’m aware of the irony: A regular poster complaining about regular posters. But there’s a difference between turning up to join a conversation and turning up to bury it under the weight of your own repetition. The former adds life. The latter ensures it never draws breath. That’s the real effect of the human Golems and their kin. They don't just lower the tone, they flatten it. People worth hearing stop talking. People worth meeting quietly leave. And what’s left is noise, puffed up with engagement metrics and very little soul.
Complaining about the noise contributes to it. That’s not a moral failure, just an architectural one. Most forum software wasn't built to help good signal float, it was built to keep people talking, even when the talk is circular, tribal, or performed. It's early 2000s stuff, rarely developed past that. But that doesn't mean nothing can be done. In a well-structured forum, we’d have: 1. Dynamic User Curation Tools Personalized Ignore Filters Instead of simply muting users, allow users to filter out behavioral patterns. For example, "collapse posts with excessive citations but no original analysis" or "hide users who never ask questions." Golem Detection Toggle Let users auto-demote posts that exhibit high-volume, low-substance traits like repetition, deflection, or link-spamming. AI could flag these posts based on patterns rather than just keywords. Essential Voices Mode Highlight users who consistently bring novel or nuanced perspectives, measured by how often their posts provoke thoughtful replies from people outside their usual camp. 2. Post Quality Scores Beyond Likes Novelty Scoring Determine whether a post introduces a new idea or is just another retread of the same old talking points. Clarity Metrics Evaluate whether the post presents its argument in a structured, readable way or hides behind complexity and jargon. Bridge Index Track how often a user earns respectful or constructive responses from people who disagree with them. A high Bridge Index suggests that person is engaging beyond their own echo chamber. 3. User CRM and Reputation Memory Private User Notes Allow users to attach private tags or notes to others. For example, "informed about data privacy but dodges ethical critiques" or "usually good faith, gets touchy on economic topics." Persistent Reputation Track patterns such as users who repeatedly vanish after losing arguments, or who never engage when challenged. Make this lightly visible in profile stats. Debate Integrity Score Capture how often someone acknowledges a good point, concedes a minor issue, or seriously engages with counterarguments. 4. Decay Functions for Repetition Diminishing Returns Algorithm Repeated points gradually lose visibility. If someone says the same thing 20 times, later versions auto-collapse unless significantly rephrased or contextually fresh. Seen This Before Flag AI tags posts that resemble older discussions. For example, "This post is 80% similar to prior arguments in this thread. Click to expand." Thread Fatigue Detection If a conversation is clearly circling, the system could prompt participants: "This thread has low novelty. Would you like to summarize or move on?" 5. AI as a Referee, Not a Censor Steelmanning Bot Before submitting a reply, the AI offers the strongest possible version of your opponent’s point. This encourages fairer responses and discourages straw-manning. Ghosting Alerts When a user routinely disappears after being challenged, the system notes it. For example: "This user has left 8 out of 10 debates after receiving counterarguments." Socratic Mode Temporarily shifts thread structure into a question-and-answer format. Users must respond to direct questions before continuing with their own points. 6. Alternative Incentives Synthesis Points Reward users who create useful summaries, bridge opposing views, or clarify positions others struggle to express. Thread Lifespan Metrics Surface and showcase threads that sustained a productive tone over time, not just those with the highest post count or controversy. Wisdom Mining At a thread’s conclusion, AI could generate a digest of the strongest arguments from all sides. This would elevate lasting insight over heat-of-the-moment rhetoric.
I will say on reflection that in the early days of the Internet, '90s to 2000s, good faith was the norm online. I started one of the first company specific technical support forums which had the real company techs backing it, semi-unofficially. Back then I guess people didn't have the idea of behaving any differently to how one would in person and few had burner email addresses. What we’re seeing now, this push toward a "verified identity" Internet, isn’t about trust. It’s surveillance architecture being built in plain sight. And a lot of it is being driven by companies like Palantir, and other entities that belong firmly in the authoritarian state stuff of nightmares category.
JFYI - For the rest of us, we have lives outside of ET. We understand that ET is your life and you seem to see it as 100 hour per week job.
I also have a life, I’m just a good multitasker. This morning I was flying my gyroplane at sunrise, and that had my full attention. A lot of good traders I’ve met tend to have a pronounced capacity for split attention. And let’s be honest, most forum users are probably just skimming a few posts while sitting on their hands mid-trade. High functioning ADHD, higher than many. I have a part time job in marketing, I support training in Ukraine, I provide medical support for my wife, producing a new short film...I do my charity stuff and brush my teeth twice a day.
The Golems and the endless string of objectivist libertarian perpetual teenage bros, a personal note system could be useful to tell the ancaps apart.
Seriously, we need to setup an an ET Addicts Anonymous for you with a 12 step program. You are fully addicted to ET. If you went a week without ET, you would probably have seizures and delirium tremens then be put on a psych hold.