This is an advertisement for Reddit, Inc. that most people won’t even realize they’re being served until they click the link. I’m not contending the link is a big deal in a vacuum; I’m contending you’ve actively substituted a completely benign – even quite helpful – advertisement with a slightly yet definitely worse advertisement and are claiming this is rooted in staunch anti-advertisement ethics.
It still wouldn’t make it consistent given you’re still advertising Adam in the post body. Anti-advertisement ethics aren’t the problem; your lens for evaluating them clearly is, and I’m not here to bodge together the garbage it’s feeding you.
I’m pointing out that your reductionist, black-and-white attitude is so convoluted and so unhelpful that it’s not even practicable for you to follow while complying with your belief that – to the author and the reader – it’s wrong to erase credit. And I can tell that’s your ethical stance because you re-added credit despite no rule and despite sponging up public ridicule like you practically enjoy it.
Edit: I will tell you just to drive this point even further that your post is an advertisement for Ellis’ work for anyone (like me) who recognizes his distinctive art style. So be sure to take it down or run it through a slop filter to genericize it.
Giving credit to the original author – which I understand you did in the post body – is advertising only in the most benign sense. It is not intrusive; it is not misleading; it is not manipulative; it is not malicious; it is not meaningfully harmful in any way.
I understand hating watermarks. But this isn’t someone slapping an iFunny or whatever bullshit brand onto an image completely unearned like a barnacle; the artist created a work for you to have for free (as in beer, and given memes, mostly as in freedom too), and the only thing they’re asking is that you preserve this small bit of credit. No, it’s not charity, but – speaking as someone who does volunteer work nobody will ever materially compensate me for – whoooo cares?
In an Internet awash with faceless, generic slop that nobody and everybody created at the same time, an artist’s watermark is one of the few ways people can attach an identity to their work. You definitely realize that removing credit from the image and transferring it to the post body isn’t identical – else you wouldn’t do it. Yet you’re still advertising for them, just in an intentionally kneecapped way that profits a known-malignant, multibillion-dollar corporation. What you’re doing as a substitute is somehow worse – transferring part of the advertisement to RDDT (136.18).
“Caught”
Why don’t you just leave the ads in, and then people won’t be mad at you?
I don’t like them.
Do you like people being mad at you?
I don’t like ads.
This is an advertisement for Reddit, Inc. that most people won’t even realize they’re being served until they click the link. I’m not contending the link is a big deal in a vacuum; I’m contending you’ve actively substituted a completely benign – even quite helpful – advertisement with a slightly yet definitely worse advertisement and are claiming this is rooted in staunch anti-advertisement ethics.
So you suggest removing the Reddit link?
It still wouldn’t make it consistent given you’re still advertising Adam in the post body. Anti-advertisement ethics aren’t the problem; your lens for evaluating them clearly is, and I’m not here to bodge together the garbage it’s feeding you.
I’m pointing out that your reductionist, black-and-white attitude is so convoluted and so unhelpful that it’s not even practicable for you to follow while complying with your belief that – to the author and the reader – it’s wrong to erase credit. And I can tell that’s your ethical stance because you re-added credit despite no rule and despite sponging up public ridicule like you practically enjoy it.
Edit: I will tell you just to drive this point even further that your post is an advertisement for Ellis’ work for anyone (like me) who recognizes his distinctive art style. So be sure to take it down or run it through a slop filter to genericize it.
So you are saying their should be zero credit to be ad free?
Giving credit to the original author – which I understand you did in the post body – is advertising only in the most benign sense. It is not intrusive; it is not misleading; it is not manipulative; it is not malicious; it is not meaningfully harmful in any way.
I understand hating watermarks. But this isn’t someone slapping an iFunny or whatever bullshit brand onto an image completely unearned like a barnacle; the artist created a work for you to have for free (as in beer, and given memes, mostly as in freedom too), and the only thing they’re asking is that you preserve this small bit of credit. No, it’s not charity, but – speaking as someone who does volunteer work nobody will ever materially compensate me for – whoooo cares?
In an Internet awash with faceless, generic slop that nobody and everybody created at the same time, an artist’s watermark is one of the few ways people can attach an identity to their work. You definitely realize that removing credit from the image and transferring it to the post body isn’t identical – else you wouldn’t do it. Yet you’re still advertising for them, just in an intentionally kneecapped way that profits a known-malignant, multibillion-dollar corporation. What you’re doing as a substitute is somehow worse – transferring part of the advertisement to RDDT (136.18).
No rational way of looking at this makes sense.