Comment on Rule 2 Clarifications and New Rule proposal I’ve gotten through (I believe) a
ken@discuss.tchncs.de 4 days agoIf you work for a company or own the company you are still making a self- promotional post for a company, and the rule applies. So if the exact same post is posted by a friend instead it’s suddenly accepted? Why is self-promo meaningfully less desired than third-party-promo if they have similar results?
You seem to be vastly in the minority. Might be! That one’s framed as just personal preference and not policy suggestion :)
So a more restrictive rule? More restrictive in one sense (what content and what’s ok to “promote” for) but more allowing in another (you can talk about something even if you work there).
curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 4 days ago
If that friend is actively participating in the fediverse and not coming in just to post constantly about a product… Then yes, which the employee/owner/whatever could also just do.
Seems like pretty far into edge case territory though.
Because that post ties to that person on the fediverse, not someone just coming in to blast marketing materials then disappear. Its less about the promo part and more about a way to manage / prevent a constant influx of spammy self promotion hit and runs.
If its what the community is interested in, its exactly the governance model that fits IMO.
And just like this rule, if the community preference changes, then so would the rule.
Except that would already be allowed under the current rule, the only change is that non-free wouldn’t be eligible for posting at all.