> Do these posts just get upvoted due to the graphics/animations?

I don't think so. It's more likely that they're upvoted as a signal-boost; convene here to talk about bad government tech.

Some submissions are less about the subject matter than they are about providing a space to talk about only the subject in general. I've found this to be the case when the content is AI-generated.

It's upvoted because the message is "the administration bad." Which, heuristically, is the correct take most of the time.

These posts get upvoted because the content itself is big news (government apps having insane amounts of spyware is, imo, something worth discussing.) I think if the frontend was just plain HTML/CSS, it would still get a comparable number of upvotes.

Yeah, this site has been posted a few times recently, and there is something just very odd about the site design and the writing.

For example, this post seems unhinged at best: https://www.sambent.com/the-engineer-who-tried-to-put-age-ve...

I didn't even realise it was an article. I thought the grid thing at the top was just an index page linking out to other pages.

I can only presume it's designed for people who's attention will not be kept by sparse but fitting graphics and a well written article.

I can't read any of it, but the other comment's descriptions sound like the new mandatory Russian Max app, so it isn't without precedent.

Speaking for myself unless I know the site and like how they do things, my default these days is a reader view.

It helps a lot!

In this case it helped me lose interest in the article within about 20 seconds.