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

©2024 Poal.co

1.4K

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 (edited )

The articles are properly attributed, both from the home page and at the top of the article itself. So its not stealing, its the same thing that MSN, Yahoo, Google News would do with AP, UPI, Reuters. In short, theyre legitimate and they have full articles of current events.

Example of attribution:

https://ibb.co/Vt23R8D

https://ibb.co/D4mxWL6

All news websites have ads. And all news sources change their advertising purveyors over time to be optimal for their site, in addition they only use two 3rd party domains for static, non-popup ads, ad.style and powerad.ai. Their advertisement strategy and implementation is not akin to porn websites. It is now the users responsibility for Network Filters, and the userbase here is predominantly within the 5% of browser users that utilize adblocking.

Those spammer accounts are long gone. Amren would probably be posted several times a month.

[–] • 0 pt

Thanks for your concern, but even though you seem really concerned about it, you are missing important details.

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

Ah, I see. Re: stealing and monetizing: I would venture to say that they have to pay to re-publish those articles, else theyd be sunk in lawsuit hell years ago. I will verify this directly from them.

My initial curiosity was due to not being able to post a link. I checked the sitelog, and there it was, oddly amidst hundreds of other URLs that were obviously spammy, I looked at some of those too to see if it wasnt an oddity. Turns out, it didnt make sense that AmRen was there, thus my shitpants protest of days ago. I was not aware of the precedents as to why. However, its still the only outlier of all the banned domains.

Update: enquired. I will append their response here.

[–] • 0 pt

You, sir, are a bro. Please ping me if they reply.

[–] • 0 pt

Thanks, I'm really curious on what they will reply, if they do (since their two accounts here left without even trying to discuss that matter).