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

©2024 Poal.co

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).
[–] • 1 pt

Once again, you are being dishonest here. That's not censorship, that's spam prevention.

I don't appreciate the insult. It's not true at all. You and I have different perspectives as to what is spam and what is censorship, but you don't see me insulting you because your perspective differs from mine.

[–] • 0 pt

I don't appreciate the insult.

Well I'm sorry if accurate words hurt your feelings.

Dishonest: Lacking truthfulness;

That's exactly what it is. You wouldn't see me coming to your website and calling out censorship because you banned a domain that steals articles from other places and reposts them with tons of ads. So don't accuse poal of censorship when what we do is spam prevention.

The behavior of the two above mentioned accounts was pretty clear that their intention was to spam and nothing else.

[–] • 1 pt

I think dishonest implies active deceit rather than simply being incorrect.