4 ms·
Cynically angling for click-throughs by trying to redefine words or introduce trivial distinctions is another classic move.
by uoaei 3y ago
Cynically angling for click-throughs by trying to redefine words or introduce trivial distinctions is another classic move.
- AlbertCory 3y agoNothing you'd ever do, Mr. I'm The Expert and You All Should Show Respect?
- uoaei 3y agoLook, Bob, I don't have a personal vendetta against you. I do find value in clarifying things that are obscured by pomp and rhetoric. What's more, I don't appreciate muddied conversations, particularly when the motivation for the introduction of such mud is purely self-serving, especially in monetary terms. It seems obvious to me that Substack assesses your quality as a writer by checking on click-throughs from various sources and I would wager good money that they pay out differently depending on the behavior of the users who follow those links, either algorithmically in realtime or whenever it comes time to renegotiate terms. It's not even 2+2 here, Bob. PS: morality is more than just "would someone else do it". Don't make me start quoting cliches typically reserved for 5 year olds.
- AlbertCory 3y agoMy Substack is free, so nix to that. Maybe you should try writing something people like to read. Come back and tell us how it went.
- uoaei 3y agoIs free, perhaps. But that could be for many reasons, including that you haven't yet convinced Substack to monetize your offerings. Isn't that how it always is when publishing on platforms you don't own? That you must prove your worth to get the paying gig?
- AlbertCory 3y agoFor someone who doesn't have a personal vendetta, you sure spend a lot of time writing about me. Tell you what: all publicity is good publicity. Why don't you mention my book titles next time?
- uoaei 3y ago[flagged]