[webmobdev]

> I just don't get the point of a blanket ban on OF people who market themselves this way

The reason has been specified and is to the point: "... contribution is usually shallow and easy to see through. This pollutes the place with a low-effort content ..." - these OF advertisers are only interested in getting people to see their profile (as you rightly pointed out), not their posted content, because their intention is to make money from such content ... obviously, in a place where content is more higly valued, such posters will be banned to ensure that it doesn't attract more of these kind of people. And yes, many sub-reddits do have poor quality content. Thanks to the ban on OF advertisers, it is much less.

[OnlyFriendsThwy]

>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".

[wruza]

Your position is valid, but in reality that’s exactly what is used to game the rules. I got banned or post deleted. Why is their blog link not banned then? Why that low quality post is still there then? See, I can game the rules but I can’t game the community. They just “don’t want it”, no matter how hard “it” is to define. It’s their place, mods have limited time, and if some phenomenon becomes too common, blanket rules are inevitable.

What is the ethical way to self-promote?

Exactly what you propose. But if they ask you to stop even that, you should. If they don’t have enough to judge case by case with hundreds of cases, you have to understand that and agree.

By using “I” and “you” above I mean example person, not one of us.

Another thing that you assume, which is not exactly correct imo, is what slut-shaming is. We may agree that explicit directed pointing-out and shaming is bad, because it attacks a person. But we can’t blame internal “don’t want it here” feelings, even if that is based on OF link. Shaming is a direct action, not location-based attitude. The same person may not want it in a linux-related group, but may visit a link and subscribe in OF-related one. E.g. I like strippers in my local stripclub and have good relationships with few of them, but I wouldn’t want them advertise it at my nephew’s birthday party or sysop meetings.

[webmobdev]

People join and participate in reddit for the free "quality" content. Not for click-baits.

Let's be clear here - OF creators are looking for unsolicited free advertising.

And that's at the crux of the issue - both free online communities and subscription based paid online communities are competitors because both are in the business of content generation.

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!

OF creators are in the business of making and selling their content. Obviously it is not in their best interest to make their quality content available freely. As free quality content is anathema to their business, obviously there is absolutely no reason for any community to tolerate their attempts at free self-promotion.

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.

[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.