Sadly, I see their use is more common now.
Peeps are paranoid about commodification; these are the algorithms and heuristics which linguistics has toppled too. And now they're checking through this. This has been checked adversarially, intuitively and counter-intuitively through a Socratic construction, with some autocomplete along with some other thoughts.
Pangram and others don't work. Or the self-abnegation of personal responsibility. Shall I quote? With that
Anyhow, here are two articles on why they are not to be trusted. Oh yeah, did I tell you the classifiers don't work in and of themselves? Well, you are the product. More on the math here.
Wow, look at that math.
Including a linguistic lesson on negative construction.
“It's not X. It's why” is a linguistic construction, more specifically, a “contrastive negation followed by a corrective assertion.” It's part of a rich “grammatical context for negated restrictives in English.” Olli O. Silvennoinen wrote an entire doctoral dissertation of 131 pages on contrastive negation.(Off Tangent, he does try to the cult thing, that's a fandom thing though. Is my opinion.)
So, what do we do? Trust, Trust that it is.
