Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2024 Poal.co

1.3K

AOU and PMYB2 believe that AmRen is spam because they republish articles without editorializing them. Further, they have ads on their site (apparently, I've never seen them because of ad-blockers) they are not against the content per-se and AOU has personally posted a number of Jarrod Taylor's videos (via other websites bitchute etc)

Further, apparently, there were two people who would spam amren articles here on poal. Last I heard they had been spoken to.

I disagree with this particular definition of 'spam' and would be much happier to give clicks to amren dot com than to the guardian, or NYtimes.

I've been assured by PMYB2 that they'll reinstate amren "soon" (although that was circa 3?4? months ago)

Until the https://amren .com url censorship [Edit: ban or spam control] ceases, I'll continue to post their archived versions here. If you're interested in reading their reasons in their own words on the subject here and here2 and here3

Edit: AOU disagrees with my usage of the word 'censorship' in this context. He believes that blocking a url from being able to be typed is not censorship when it's 'spam'. So I guess we have two disagreements. It's ok, we can still be bros.

AOU and PMYB2 believe that AmRen is spam because they republish articles without editorializing them. Further, they have ads on their site (apparently, I've never seen them because of ad-blockers) they are not against the content per-se and AOU has personally posted a number of Jarrod Taylor's videos (via other websites bitchute etc) Further, apparently, there were two people who would spam amren articles here on poal. Last I heard they had been spoken to. I disagree with this particular definition of 'spam' and would be much happier to give clicks to amren dot com than to the guardian, or NYtimes. I've been assured by PMYB2 that they'll reinstate amren "soon" (although that was circa 3?4? months ago) Until the https://amren .com url ~~censorship~~ [Edit: ban or spam control] ceases, I'll continue to post their archived versions here. If you're interested in reading their reasons in their own words on the subject [here](https://poal.co/s/Amren/352180/2cf61164-4bb3-42ac-92e1-e1b3d169cd11#cmnts) and [here2](https://poal.co/s/TellPoal/290470) and [here3](https://poal.co/s/RealWhatever/290437/4108af94-a976-44ca-a34f-93f909652a88#cmnts) ~~Edit: AOU disagrees with my usage of the word 'censorship' in this context. He believes that blocking a url from being able to be typed is not censorship when it's 'spam'. So I guess we have two disagreements.~~ It's ok, we can still be bros.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (33).
[–] • 0 pt

eh, if you think so you're the admin.

That's not an argument.

[–] • 1 pt

No. No it isn't, nor is it presented as an argument. It's literally a statement of fact. You're the admin, you decide what is blocked and what isn't. End of discussion. There was never an argument so I'm not sure what the fuck you're getting at.

But the mere idea that you don't block (((USConservative)))'s websites for the sheer volume of malicious tracking scripts on the sites is extremely odd.

But like I said: you're the admin. I know how to block them on my end, so it really doesn't matter if you do or don't for me.

[–] • 0 pt

I know how to block them on my end, so it really doesn't matter if you do or don't for me.

Yet you are writing long comments explaining how you care (((because))).

[–] • 0 pt

that's a long comment

6 sentences

long comment

kek Sure thing bucko.

Whatever. If you're in such a garbage mood you're unwilling to actually talk that's fine. No loss on my end.