Anecdotally, I think that I have been seeing significantly fewer AI cover images in my MakerWorld feed.
Either way, I agree that the outlined stance from MakerWorld is somewhat “tepid”, but to be fair it’s not easy from their perspective. It can be hard when you try to take a harder stance on something like this because application of hard rules can be perceived as too tough or difficult to achieve, which then makes it easy to fail at or take time to implement causing people to complain. It’s a bit of a “you’re damned if you do. you’re damned if you don’t” situation. Though, in that case you might as well be “damned” by taking a stronger stance.
All in all, I appreciate that MakerWorld is showing an effort and, even if I don’t agree with the results of that effort, I’ll take some effort over none.
Lastly, what Square3D says about the one user is definitely a big issue that was not addressed. I’m not afraid to mention them by name, though. Along with being one of the worst offenders of AI generated cover images that misrepresent the model and violating the clearly stated MakerWorld guidelines by including affiliate links* in each one of their model descriptions, @Docsnyder78’s behavior on this forum alone is a problem. They are needlessly antagonistic to people who express valid complaints on this issue. Those valid complaints are at the foundation of this thread and the core of your stance against these behaviors. Worse, their claims about having an insider to manipulate MakerWorld to their benefit outlines their behavior of acting superior to others and disparages the people who are trying to discuss this situation respectfully. Additionally, MakerWorld’s lack of action about these claims make it seem that they are true, which sows distrust in MakerWorld. You can easily see in their post history on the forums [here] that out of a total of 49 total messages only one was not on a thread where they are antagonizing people because of these valid complaints.
*more information on this can be found [here]