@muru I'm certainly not try to be misleading, and I don't believe it is. If a post disappears from the Home page "too soon", then I'm not going to see it (and many others won't either). If it's going to be there a long time anyway while it gets slowly voted to -8, then I don't see how it's a problem. The longer it takes to reach -8, the sooner after that it will naturally scroll off.

(1) I doubt most people typically look beyond the Home page on Meta. I know I don't unless I'm looking for something specific. (2) As for the "hiding another post", I just don't see this as a problem to worry about given the low frequency. I'd be okay with perhaps hiding low-scores after some extended period of time, but given the (currently only) two options to "hide immediately" and "hide never", I'd go with "hide never" myself.

What a great question. I do know that (on many SE sites) some folks are too quick to close a duplicate based on the (illogical, as you point out), rule that "two questions having the same answer means they are duplicates". This will be a great canonical question to point to in these cases, at least here on AU.

@FranckDernoncourt This is about what to do with the questions, not the answers. Even here on Ask Ubuntu, you will likely receive a warning and one of the answers will be removed if you post identical answers on two or more questions. If the questions are different, then useful answers will be tailored to each question. In the case of those SO questions - Neither was ever closed for being a duplicate of the other, but your answer was deleted on one because it was a copy/paste.

In a "follow the money" analysis, it's most likely one of Stack Exchange's customers that has an issue with this. The customers that use Teams and Collectives are often in for "six and seven figure deals" (according to one of the Sales job postings). I've seen one company's employees posting AI-generated answers at a higher-than-average rate on Stack Overflow, and I'm wondering if perhaps there was some sort of escalation from the Account Team. Those tend to often get knee-jerk reactions from management that can often result in bad decision making for the company as a whole.

Second, while they may own a number of other companies, SO is definitely their largest acquisition to date and likely makes up a more significant chunk of their portfolio/valuation than any other child-company. So if they do perceive a problem that could devalue their investment, they'll likely get involved.

I did similar research on Prosus (and their primary owner, Naspers) in attempt to "follow the money" in terms of why things were happening here. But I didn't reach quite the same conclusions. First, you wouldn't normally see Prosus management get involved at this level - I believe this is purely something coming out of the SO/SE staff. They'd probably ask the CEO about it, if it appeared to become a problem, but I doubt they were behind this decision.

Just to be clear, my understanding from having a tag-wiki-edit rejected is that even if the external website is referenced as the source of the information in the tag-wiki itself, it's still not acceptable. Not plagiarism in that case, but it can run afoul of other copywrite issues since information here must be CC-BY-SA, and it is not possible for you or I as editors to change the license of text which is copywritten under different terms.