Impulsive Writing, Quotas, and Keeping Things as Concise as Feasible
What makes literary work valuable or gives value to the work isn't the volume of words or number of keypresses
With or within social control media, many users are subjected to reckless, irresponsible "gamification" (addiction); the executives try to emulate traits from the gambling industry, for users to be constantly "engaged" (physically or mentally) so they feel compelled to keep up or to maintain some "pace"; otherwise, so-called 'friends' might think something is wrong or that they cannot "get ahead" (more "likes"). It's a mutual shame game which everyone stands to lose. It leads lots of social control media users to insecurity, stress, sometimes burnout. That's one of the reasons several nations, not just loads of schools or school districts, limit teens' access to such platforms or "apps" (the latter is just a UI).
The word "users" is a clue; think drug users, Apple/Microsoft Windows users... it's like a toxin.
On the Web, when it comes to blogging, people have their own separate platforms (unlike social control media), so they're not likely to compete per se and their sites aren't comparable anyway.
Over the past 2 years I've read with growing concern, especially in the Press Gazette, that some news sites impose article "quotas" (like EPO with patents) on writers. Some will end up cheating, e.g. resorting to LLMs. Some, who got cautioned for "low performance", would produce nonsense or falsehoods (deliberately rushed and sloppy jobs). Some would quit the occupation due to pressure. All quotas are based on some yardstick, such as "productivity" as measured by the number of words, not the number of hours spent researching a subject (harder to properly enumerate the latter). It lessens the overall quality and learns to churnalism being rewarded (to meet "targets").
That leads us to the last (above-mentioned) point: number of words.
The number of words is rather meaningless. Spewing our many words isn't hard, LLMs can do that. Before LLMs there were many other ways to do the same, e.g. run Google Translate on some sites online to get 'original' new text. Google Translate has been around for two decades already. It wasn't even the first of its kind (we had some in the 1990s).
A 10-word sentence being read by a million people can have the same impact or magnitude (exposure-wise) as a million-word book being read by just 10 people. Heck, if that book repeats the same points over and over again, then it might be missing the point.
When publishing information or some analysis the goal should not be to make it long, at least not longer then it can be (while relaying or getting across the key facts). Just as we don't measure the quality of some food in some restaurant by raw weight (1 KG of French fries on a plate, soaked with oil, is no better than 100 grams of finely-made cuisine).
Having just mentioned IBM slop (fake journalism), the time seemed right express concerns about popular fallacies. Some publishers wrongly assume that journalists as some sort of "flesh typewriters" rather than people who can think, digest information, and then research/dig up some more information to form and reaffirm conclusions.
The publishers that delude themselves into this mentality end up experimenting with LLM slop and dooming whatever they once published, disgracing any (good) past work using bot-generated garbage.
Sane people are never going to be interesting in reading or listening to stuff produced by bots (unless the bots' use isn't disclosed). This has been proved time after time. Life is too short to read or listen to everything, so people are selective. █