While that thread has replicated the basic dynamic of “sharing something I disagree with with others so we can all hate on it”, I think it’s still far from what I would call getting “rage-baited”
When I think of responding to rage-bait on socmed, I think of cycles of virtue signalling and trying to one up the original author with the best one liner you can think of. It’s not not present, but the core difference is that in that thread people are still analysing the text, expressing specifically what they don’t like about it, even alternate viewpoints. Nothing new is being said that hasn’t probably already been expressed in the “indie web” circle, but it’s still a discussion that can potentially be insightful to someone.
So to answer this question, I honestly think it is not inherently a problem. I think picking apart why you hate something is still a productive exercise. I am reminded of this post by Jay in another thread. Starting out by dunking on something doesn’t mean there isn’t potential to grow into greater discussions.
However, if the goal of “productive discussion” is (from what I gather from the vibe of this thread) is a rigorous and respectful discussion between differing views, I wish I didn’t feel this way but I do think it’s a very very hard thing to achieve online, where a limitation/feature of the web is that you cannot be constantly online, and thus you are not required to give your full attention to a conversation and can just pop out of it at any moment.
I think this forum has already done its part in establishing that you should at least make sure your reply is thoughtful, but it takes some cultivation on the individual’s part as well to be curious and to engage with readings that do not immediately communicate its contents to you.
I dunno, it’s always been hard for me to tackle this topic because I’ve adopted the “don’t like then scroll” mentality for so long. I read maybe 3 paragraphs of that Medium post and thought “Oh, this is just LLM garbage” and just closed the tab XD