We’ve had some trouble recently with posts from aggregator links like Google Amp, MSN, and Yahoo.
We’re now requiring links go to the OG source, and not a conduit.
In an example like this, it can give the wrong attribution to the MBFC bot, and can give a more or less reliable rating than the original source, but it also makes it harder to run down duplicates.
So anything not linked to the original source, but is stuck on Google Amp, MSN, Yahoo, etc. will be removed.
I said they were profligate in their posting, not spamming. Say, for instance, users with 1.6k posts in around 60 days. Personally I feel they have been spamming, but the mods think differently and that’s fine. However they are pretty universally regarded as posting and commenting to an unhealthy degree.
Lemmy is a small, but growing community that needs more content to compete with Reddit. Prolific posters are actually something to celebrate for helping the community grow. In my personal opinion.
I actually wish there were more prolific posters and more posters in general.
And of course, we can always block posters if we don’t want to view their content. :)
It doesn’t need your posts, as evident by the massive amounts of downvotes your propaganda receives. No one is celebrating you.
Well if my posts don’t matter to people here, then you have no reason to be upset by them. Thank you!
Ah, right, I left that off of my script notes! It’s one of your classics. I’ll be sure to keep that one in mind moving forward.
I, for one, am happy to see people treating your posted content the way they do: like spam and propaganda. If you keep it up, you’ll reach your next major milestone of 50,000 downvotes. Truly something to aspire to.
No aspirations. I just post what I find interesting. Thank you! :)
You sure find propaganda and spamming interesting. You’re prolific in posting it, that’s for damn sure.
Luckily, they get downvoted so fast that they never cross the feeds of those browsing hot and top. As long as that’s happening, I’m happy and content.
Meh, most people I know sort by “new.”
But if you think downvoting keeps my articles from being seen, then that means there’s no reason for you to be upset by me posting.
Because no one is going to see it, right? Thanks!
Oh, sorry, I think you’re confused again; I’m here to help show the few people who do see your posts that you’ve got a clear agenda and pretty much only post propaganda and otherwise spam the politics community. Luckily, the downvotes show that much of the active community here is already aware, but in case they don’t understand why you’re getting downvoted, I want to show them why. I don’t care about anything else past letting that be known.
Oh, and I like keeping track of the rotation of like 10-15 talking points you have. Keeps things interesting and entertaining.
I don’t believe my posts are either of those, but you are free to believe what you want to believe.
I respect your right to have your opinion, even if it differs from mine. Thank you! :)
I do, and Lemmy agrees, so I’m happy with that. Everyone can have an opinion, but like most of Lemmy, I don’t respect yours because it’s based in propaganda and right-wing talking points.
Wow, speak of the devil! Lemmy growing for the sake of growing just recreates Reddit. Every forum is dominated by a super minority of posters, a small minority of commenters, and a super majority of lurkers. Nothing has changed about that since the Usenet days you claim to be old enough to remember.
Posts without thought or of low quality encourage people to go elsewhere. The answer is not more crap posted by more people, it’s quality posts from diverse users with healthy and good faith discussions. So basically the opposite of what you do with the volume and choice of articles you share, and your rampant attempts to stifle and distract from constructive discussions in the comments.
Poorly sourced and written articles presenting issues without context are not only actively harmful to this community but harmful to the prospect of Lemmy and the fediverse as a whole. The fact that this is something you don’t recognize surprises me not at all.
Meh, I don’t write them. And they don’t seem poorly written to me. Thanks! :)
I mean, how could we tell if you’ve ever even read them as you refuse to discuss them or even talk about why you thought they were interesting enough to share?
Also, considering your frequent errors and comment editing and what you chose to share, I don’t believe we share equivalent standards on writing or journalistic quality.
Good thing I don’t write the articles then, right? Can you imagine how error-prone they’d be?! lol
And hey, at least now you know I’m not a bot. Thank you! :)