On the contrary, JGW posted this top-level post partly in response to my original comment (there were no others calling it an ad at the time, despite his use of the plural). Within it, he explicitly ignores my point:
I won’t argue whether or not the post was an ad, but I will say that it belongs on Less Wrong and we should give it a good reception.
The main reason I gave for saying it did not belong on LW was that it was an ad, and a poorly written one at that!
(It’s irrelevant even by the most generous possible interpretation of community standards- we routinely have ads for unrelated and commercial products/services, to the extent that there was a highly upvoted official thread for them.)
I also think those ads are abuses of the discussion section, even when they are posted by the SI itself, and I have argued against them in the past, to little avail.
You’re also using inaccurate ad hominems- how is this in any way a guilt trip?
What else do you call it when someone complains about downvotes, in order to receive upvotes?
This is becoming somewhat silly. I’ve already wasted more time arguing against the post than time I would ever possibly save from discussion being ad-free.
On the contrary, JGW posted this top-level post partly in response to my original comment (there were no others calling it an ad at the time, despite his use of the plural). Within it, he explicitly ignores my point:
I won’t argue whether or not the post was an ad, but I will say that it belongs on Less Wrong and we should give it a good reception.
The principle reason I give for saying it did not belong on LW was that it was an ad, and a poorly written one at that!
I’m sorry, I misunderstood what you thought JGW was saying. Here’s how I interpreted it: The question of whether or not it’s an ad is a matter of semantics; such arguments are almost never useful, and JGW quite rightly, IMHO, decided not to get involved in one.
Claiming that the post was an ad sneaks in a couple of connotations, most notably that it is poor quality, that it is not useful for LW members, that it is designed to profit the advertiser by manipulating readers in detrimental ways, etc. (Or, more broadly, that no ad belongs on LW.) JGW addressed those connotations directly, instead of getting mired in a debate about definitions: “We should be happy when they reach out to us, to see how we can work together… They are basically offering to do free research for us on things that we care about, because our goals are aligned....” (If that post was an ad, and it belonged on LW, then clearly some ads belong on LW.) Your response then pointed out that “it was an ad.”
What else do you call it when someone complains about downvotes, in order to receive upvotes?
JGW had not been downvoted before; I do not see the above post as being designed to produce guilt; the majority of the target audience had not downvoted the post in question; I don’t see how the goal of this post was upvotes, as opposed to a changed community norm.
On the contrary, JGW posted this top-level post partly in response to my original comment (there were no others calling it an ad at the time, despite his use of the plural). Within it, he explicitly ignores my point:
The main reason I gave for saying it did not belong on LW was that it was an ad, and a poorly written one at that!
I also think those ads are abuses of the discussion section, even when they are posted by the SI itself, and I have argued against them in the past, to little avail.
What else do you call it when someone complains about downvotes, in order to receive upvotes?
This is becoming somewhat silly. I’ve already wasted more time arguing against the post than time I would ever possibly save from discussion being ad-free.
I’m sorry, I misunderstood what you thought JGW was saying. Here’s how I interpreted it: The question of whether or not it’s an ad is a matter of semantics; such arguments are almost never useful, and JGW quite rightly, IMHO, decided not to get involved in one.
Claiming that the post was an ad sneaks in a couple of connotations, most notably that it is poor quality, that it is not useful for LW members, that it is designed to profit the advertiser by manipulating readers in detrimental ways, etc. (Or, more broadly, that no ad belongs on LW.) JGW addressed those connotations directly, instead of getting mired in a debate about definitions: “We should be happy when they reach out to us, to see how we can work together… They are basically offering to do free research for us on things that we care about, because our goals are aligned....” (If that post was an ad, and it belonged on LW, then clearly some ads belong on LW.) Your response then pointed out that “it was an ad.”
JGW had not been downvoted before; I do not see the above post as being designed to produce guilt; the majority of the target audience had not downvoted the post in question; I don’t see how the goal of this post was upvotes, as opposed to a changed community norm.