You broke the site guidelines badly in this thread by posting much too aggressively and crossing into personal attack. We ban accounts that do this, so please don't do it on HN.
I don't see where exactly I broke the site guidelines. Was I too negative? That is a ridiculous guideline. So I'm supposed to talk positive about antisocial behavior or be quiet about it? What kind of a platform is that?
Also, I'm not sure about the personal attack and aggression. I only described search engine optimized ad spam pages with strong words. It was OP's decision to build this crap. Nobody, not even he himself argued against that these spam-pages have any value besides making him money.
I'm genuinely surprised that OP seems to not realize his past success story might be nothing to be proud of. I am also genuinely surprised that we, as a society tolerate this kind of behavior, and I actually wanted to have a discussion about this. The second post, I answered his question how I think we should deal with that and unfortunately mobbing is the only way I can think of. Again, I was open for discussion and put in alot of "I'm not sure, this is how it looks from my view" words. In the third post I tried to clarify that it's the seo ad - fueled, and that I consider that similar to littering with profit, which I guess is illegal in most countries.
A day later it still looks to me like I made a few very reasonable arguments. But sadly very little debate has been going on besides the typical low effort partisan comments. On that note, I'd like to point out that the karma system very much encourages these partisan comments, cause unfortunately solid argument are usually received much worse than snarky remarks.
"I know that you are the problem" is obviously a personal attack. Ditto "Your [...] bullshit adds zero value to society". Ditto "Your greed to the detriment of everybody else". We ban accounts that post like this, so please don't do it again.
If you'd like a heuristic to assess whether you're doing that or not, I'd say it's the combination of denunciatory language with second-person voicing (i.e. explicitly or implicitly addressing "you").
None of that has to do with making an argument - it's just directing aggression toward the other person. If you'd like to make your argument in a principled, neutral way, that of course is fine.
an article about a new app is an article about a new app, even if self promotional.
an article that spends most of its time talking about the sunshine and roses of purchasing domains from a domain squatter, even if you are a domain squatter, is an article about domain squatting.
it WAS being used for what I hope we can all agree is a very low value use that generated significant revenues by essentially tricking people to visit. That's the morality question here. Maybe it speaks to the bigger, general question of "do the ends justify the means?"
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.