A 50-something French dude that’s old enough to think blogs are still cool, if not cooler than ever. I also like to write and to sketch.
The person who posted would be the moderator for that post.
In theory a moderator is expected to be neutral in regard to what is being posted/shared (be ok with conflicting opinions, for example, even ones that completely oppose the OP). At least, in theory.
Someone posting something will seldom feel neutral regarding what they just posted.
Why is one bad but the other is acceptable?
A bit like being nice and polite would seldom be frown upon but acting like a dick would?
Things like !outofcontextcomics@lemmy.world ?
Then, I can suggest a couple dedicated comics communities
Daily, at least once in the morning and later in the evening. A lot more often whenever it’s possible. Summer and winter.
God knows I’m hostile to the marketing shit filled world we live in, but ads are… there would not even be a society without the ability to advertise, aka to share information (be it paid for or not) with other people.
The issue, my issue, is with marketing.
Any insight into this besides useful idiots saying advertising is good or necessary would be greatly appreciated!
A single one? That may be too little to be helpful but here it is: insulting people is probably not the best way to attract them to your cause.
edit: typos/ missing word
If reading is like a drug. And a drug, consumed in large quantities, produces disease. Then reading, in large quantities, produces disease.
It’s logically straightforward.
Not any more than saying ‘if cold is hot than too much hot can freeze you to death’. As long as the premise is not true (not a fact) no valid conclusion can be made out of it.
In your situation, saying “if reading is like a drug” doesn’t magically turns reading into an actual drug (the ‘if’ part is key). It still is an hypothesis that need to be demonstrated/validated.
That I understand (I can read ;)), what I don’t understand is how you manage to come to such an odd conclusion. Based on what?
A person who reads a lot might become something like a meth-head. Crippled and diseased.
Would you care to elaborate on that? Seen from the outside it sounds quite… nonsensical but I may very well be too much of a reader myself to still be able to understand too complex notions. Or maybe I’m already dead?
Good question. For a similar reason people keep using corporate-owned social media, I suppose?
Imagine this: I disagree with your reply (not saying I do, just pretend I do), and since I’m also its moderator, I simply delete it (and if you repost it I block or ban you. And that would just be me not liking someone daring contradict my own little comment.
More seriously, I think this would be a real huge source of trouble: people IRL already have a hard time to stand critics. That’s worse online.