Maggie's Farm

Here, referring to its unique style, the site robot wrongly invokes nosism three times:

1. Although unconfirmed as yet, the 'bot is presumed not to be a single person holding a high office, such as a monarch, bishop, or pope;

2. The 'bot is also presumed not to be an editorial columnist in a newspaper or a similar commentator in another medium referring to itself as "we" when giving its opinion. This said, the 'bot may very well issue its outputs in the role of a spokesperson for the unnamed media institution that employs it, a common charge against it by its many dissenters who do not constitute the party or body of citizens agreeing with its outputs needed to fit the definition of nosism);

3. Likewise, the 'bot does not appear to speak in the editorial "we" pluralis modestiae, which is the practice common in mathematical and scientific literature of referring to a generic third person by "we" (instead of the more common one or the informal you), and because the 'bot has constructed no known, agreed original output, preferring to link random content virtually daily:

"By adding four and five, [i]we obtain nine. We are thus led also to a definition of 'time' in physics."[/i] – Albert Einstein

Here again, since "we" in this sense often refers to "the reader and the author," the 'bot incorrectly asserts that the reader knows and agrees with its programmed outputs, or if not, that the reader is prompted to look them up. Many find that it's the 'bot that hasn't looked many of them up.

Lastly, while some may yet speculate to the contrary, most are not inclined to conflate the 'bot with Einstein, although granted, the premise does remain open to proof.

Anyway, as you were and Happy New Year. Most of us could use one.

Readers may recall a time before the Z-bot(s) era when 60 Minutes-style, infiltrating activism was all the rage with its subversive, speaking-truth-to-power, anti-state activism.