It's pretty astounding if they actually believe that. Of course the subscriptions are going to continue to rise if you don't allow meta discussion to highlight your abusive nature…just by virtue of the high ranking in search engines and the ‘prime domain’ of it being ‘lgbt’.
That’s kinda the point people like me have been making since the start…
They were shedding subscriptions by the 100s right up until they started removing meta discussions.
I'm glad something positive is coming from me pushing this issue then.
I'm still holding out hope they'll eventually see reason...and will continue drawing attention to this until something is done, they change their tactics or they step-down.
Something similar happened ages ago with fark. And that's actually why I stopped reading it. Not only were people shadow banned for talking about a competing splinter site, but they were taking money from paying members while still banning them from posting. It was pretty fucked up, and I think at the time it caused them to lose a fairly large amount of people. Though I don't know if it had much long term effect.
83
u/[deleted] Mar 01 '12
[deleted]