It's nearly word-for-word the content of the tweet. Right at the top. It isn't misleading unless you literally don't even bother to open the linked content.

Just ban users who comment without reading, I think that would go further to keep the quality of discussion high.

The number of bots/trolls responding to the title without reading the content and missing the point entirely is astounding, honestly, and I don't think any of those posts are contributing to high quality discussion. We could do without those users.

"but but but I can't/won't open twitter links" - then don't flap your yak-hole. Ignoring for a moment that the content has been reproduced in full in this thread, and another user has provided an alternative xcancel link.

It’s an intentionally misleading title, using “you” to imply that the reader is guilty of theft.

An honest title would be “Corgi didn’t vibe code it, they stole Papermark’s AGPL code”.

Sure, people should read links, but when a writer posts ragebait for engagement, there’s plenty of blame to go around.

You’re giving me too much credit if you think i was being sensationalist and trying to make it more clickworthy, i couldnt succeed in that if i tried

I was mostly fighting the title character limit

Ideally yes, but we know people don't RTFA - there's a reason that initialism dates back to early Slashdot.

The paraphrase is doing a lot of heavy lifting to convert it to ragebait. Had the OP gone with something like "you didn't vibe code it, you plagiarized Papermark's open source project" (may need some editing to fit under the character limit) it would have at least been more true to the original tweet.

I know I RTFA, and I know I'm not interested in discussing things with people who don't. Maybe others feel differently, because more people is better or something. Information pollution is a serious, persistent, growing problem and I'm just not inclined to be tolerant about it anymore. Mistakes are one thing, deliberate stupidity is another.

If you come to book club without reading the book, and you derail the conversation into something completely irrelevant, you're not getting invited back.

That’s a lot of rage for something that does not impact you at all. Who cares? You don’t get to control everything around you online.

They may have been vibe coding and not realised it was an exact copy. AI sometimes makes verbatim copies of things in its training set.

Short segments of popular works sure. Many UI pages with identical layouts and copy, essentially zero chance. The agent had access to the original code at inference time.