1. 0

  2. 7

    While I don’t disagree with your points in the articles, you’re posting from a brand new account that has done nothing but spam articles you have written.

    Furthermore, it seems like you and the person who invited you, and the person who invited them are all associated with privacytools.io, so this seems like an effort to spam this site.

    1. 5

      Yeah given that and the fact that these are short, non-novel recommendation posts without deeper analysis or new suggestions, this is definitely closer to spam than to what we’re looking for here.

      1. 1

        This was not my aim. The people who invited me work for privacytools.io (a registered charity) but they did not coordinate this, or have anything to do with this whatsoever. I’m glad you agree with my articles, however I will try to keep my posts more relevant.

        1. 2

          (a registered charity)

          How does this matter?

          1. 1

            I put that there to prove that this supposed spam was not for monetary gain. While you can donate, none of the money goes to people running the site, rather to helping them develop new privacy respecting software. Again, I didn’t realise by posting twice on a new account it would be considered spam, so I’ll refrain from posting so regularly in the future.

            1. 2

              Please post as often as you want, if it’s varied and relevant content.

              But, your “supposed” spam was spam because it was unsolicited and repeated. You only posted links to your site. You only commented on those posts. You have yet to act as member of our community; you have only advertised.

              1. 1

                I understand, and I’ll try and not to repeat this.