OnlyFriendsThwy

>Free online communities make money from advertisements. So it is in their obvious interest to discourage all attempts, by anyone, of "free" advertisement. Especially their competitor!

The mods of these communities aren't getting the money from reddit ads, so that doesn't apply.

>The solution? If you want to make money, you have to spend some money - Just pay for a suitable ad in the free online communities and support them.

Okay, and when reddit ads are trivially blocked, and platforms won't do OF ads, what does that leave? Have you thought this through?

Note: before you say "their content sucks", yes, I agree, sucky content should be removed. But the question here is where a submission that otherwise qualifies for the sub should be removed merely on the basis that the profile of the submitter links an OF page. Again, that's even when the submission itself doesn't link it.

I don't think you're responding the kind of activity I was defending. I'm not referring to product placement or submissions or comments that actively advocate their OF page. I'm referring to submitting rabbit pictures to /r/rabbits with the same profile as you OF identity.

I agree with you about the product placement stuff, and I despise the submarine shills. But that's the thing: that's rejecting the submission -- and banning the user -- on their content having failed to meet the forums standards, not simply the fact of their profile linking their OF, as the OP was referring to. That's a whole different league from "hey, here are some cool rabbits" and oh, if you look at their profile, you can find their OF page. (The OF friend in question was immediately banned for having a reddit account whose profile links OF even despite the mod accepting that it's otherwise a valid submission.)

I'm make the same challenge to you that the other respondent ignored: how should people ethically self-promote, if not that?

>The reason has been specified and is to the point...

It's a figure of speech, and I'm well aware of the ostensible justification, which is why the bulk of my comment is specifically addressing it, and you even recognize it as doing so.

Do try to be charitable, if for no other reason than my profile lacking a promotional link :-p

Since you've opened the door to lectures about "didn't you read this part of the comment", then I'll have to turn it around and ask why didn't you read this part:

>>Isn't that how people are supposed to promote themselves? Giving out free, relevant stuff in the hopes you'll want to know more about them?"

>>I mean, isn't that how ethical self-promotion is supposed to work? Join a community, obey their norms, contribute, and if they like you, they'll follow up? How do you expect it to work?

What is the ethical way to self-promote? In the best world, I imagine it would look exactly like I just described. If you don't have an answer to that, a better way, then I'm not sure what basis you have for objecting here; you should probably figure it out before claiming you have a defensible position.

FWIW, "just stay in your little box and never come out" is not what I would count as a defensible position.

>contribution is usually shallow and easy to see through. This pollutes the place with a low-effort content.

It absolutely can be, sure. But the point where you say "OF promoters can never contribute anything of value" is where you cross over from "prudent moderation" into slut-shaming. My regular account links my blog, as do numerous other HNers. If that blog makes them money, should they be pre-emptively banned?

>And yes, many sub-reddits do have poor quality content. Thanks to the ban on OF advertisers, it is much less.

0% of the off-topic LAMF submissions were from OF-linked accounts, and at the same time, reddit has lost out on quality submissions from OF users, while gleefully letting through ulterior-motive submissions from people who don't bother to announce themselves. Hence, "tunnel-visioned".

I see that, and I'm all for removing shallow content. I just don't get the point of a blanket ban on OF people who market themselves this way -- a mod should be capable of saying, "this person is promoting herself, but it meets the quality standards so no reason to block it" (let alone pre-emptively ban such a person). Indeed, those are the very kind of submissions that lead to a thriving, synergistic forum-ecosystem.

I mean, from my experience on reddit, there are all kinds of unworthy submissions from all kinds of motivations that get upvoted more than they should be and removed too slowly (or not at all) by mods. Whether it's brand promotion, or karma harvesting, or (all too often) just not understanding what submissions are appropriate for the forum, it degrades the experience.[1] But targeting OF users for autobans seems tunnel-visioned at best and slut-shaming at worst.

[1] one of my favorites, /r/LeopardsAteMyFace, is intended for examples of people a) getting hurt by b) policies and politicians they advocated for. But well over the half the submissions ignore b) and are just cases of "break law they obviously didn't like, get prosecuted".

How systematic are you talking? I happen to know an OF creator who promotes herself that way and she doesn't do anything in an automatic fashion, just creates her own submissions to subreddits and gets burned by such moderators.

I happen to agree with formerly_proven . When my OF friend described how she submitted topical stuff to subreddits in the hopes that others would follow up on her profile, I was like, "what's wrong with that? Isn't that how people are supposed to promote themselves? Giving out free, relevant stuff in the hopes you'll want to know more about them?"

I mean, isn't that how ethical self-promotion is supposed to work? Join a community, obey their norms, contribute, and if they like you, they'll follow up? How do you expect it to work?

<insert caveat about how you have no reason to believe this experience, since the sensitivity of the issue requires me to use a throwaway and hide her identity as well>