Because it seems like you only post links to one site from which you derive personal benefit, and don’t feel it’s necessary to disclose that to your audience.
Perspective is always biased. Telling people you work for the company helps explain why the person is posting so much from that single source and helps readers be informed regarding potential bias (intentional or unintentional).
This can help to combat misinformation and foster better conversations knowing that the poster will discuss things from a company positive point of view that not every would share.
Ok? But does writing the post myself reduce the quality? or validity of the information? I find it weird that people don’t like it when others share their work. It’s research none the less, not spam.
See, it would be like me linking to my book on Amazon and not telling anyone it was my book. It’s advertising when you’re monetized. And that’s going to mean that the writer may be shilling their product rather than sharing something that is on topic and interesting just because they’re generating income of some degree from it.
It’s a matter of transparency and trust. If you’re transparent about your monetary involvement, then you are letting the reader decide if that’s trustworthy or not, rather than showing that there’s a lack of trustworthiness by not doing so.
Now, I don’t really care, personally. I know substack is a monetization source, and that everything on it is going to be equivalent to an opinion piece until and unless the specific link has verifiable and reliable sources. There is some decent journalism there occasionally.
Seriously, people are fine with sharing one’s own work. You just have to be honest about it from the beginning. Admitting it later isn’t the same thing. And that’s true no matter whether it’s monetized or not, but with something like substack, it’s more important.
Also, as others have pointed out, when that’s all you’re posting, it starts to look like all you’re doing is shilling yourself. That’s pretty much what spam is, by the more loose usage. Unwanted, unsolicited advertisements. Since lemmy in general is hyper vigilant regarding commercial encroachment, it ends up being much easier to be relegated to the spam pile. Lemmy, largely, is meant for conversation between people rather than between people and advertisers. If you want to be a person, and be treated like anyone else, you have to be able and willing to accept the unwritten social rules of the platform.
I’m not trying to shit on you, or your linked article. I haven’t read it (and likely won’t, sorry). This is just to try and explain the wall you’re hitting so that you understand enough to do things differently, or realize that lemmy isn’t the best place to self promote, even indirectly, without full disclosure.
4realz@lemmy.world 9 months ago
I’m a writer for the publication. Why?
DABDA@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Because it seems like you only post links to one site from which you derive personal benefit, and don’t feel it’s necessary to disclose that to your audience.
BRabbit@lemmy.world 9 months ago
I don’t think Lemmy is a platform where such disclosure would be necessary. What change does it make if OP discloses this or not?
toasteecup@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Perspective is always biased. Telling people you work for the company helps explain why the person is posting so much from that single source and helps readers be informed regarding potential bias (intentional or unintentional).
This can help to combat misinformation and foster better conversations knowing that the poster will discuss things from a company positive point of view that not every would share.
4realz@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Ok? But does writing the post myself reduce the quality? or validity of the information? I find it weird that people don’t like it when others share their work. It’s research none the less, not spam.
southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 9 months ago
No, it doesn’t.
However, it can.
See, it would be like me linking to my book on Amazon and not telling anyone it was my book. It’s advertising when you’re monetized. And that’s going to mean that the writer may be shilling their product rather than sharing something that is on topic and interesting just because they’re generating income of some degree from it.
It’s a matter of transparency and trust. If you’re transparent about your monetary involvement, then you are letting the reader decide if that’s trustworthy or not, rather than showing that there’s a lack of trustworthiness by not doing so.
Now, I don’t really care, personally. I know substack is a monetization source, and that everything on it is going to be equivalent to an opinion piece until and unless the specific link has verifiable and reliable sources. There is some decent journalism there occasionally.
Seriously, people are fine with sharing one’s own work. You just have to be honest about it from the beginning. Admitting it later isn’t the same thing. And that’s true no matter whether it’s monetized or not, but with something like substack, it’s more important.
Also, as others have pointed out, when that’s all you’re posting, it starts to look like all you’re doing is shilling yourself. That’s pretty much what spam is, by the more loose usage. Unwanted, unsolicited advertisements. Since lemmy in general is hyper vigilant regarding commercial encroachment, it ends up being much easier to be relegated to the spam pile. Lemmy, largely, is meant for conversation between people rather than between people and advertisers. If you want to be a person, and be treated like anyone else, you have to be able and willing to accept the unwritten social rules of the platform.
I’m not trying to shit on you, or your linked article. I haven’t read it (and likely won’t, sorry). This is just to try and explain the wall you’re hitting so that you understand enough to do things differently, or realize that lemmy isn’t the best place to self promote, even indirectly, without full disclosure.