Doesn't it make a lot of sense when you consider Kotaku and Buzzfeed post intentional rage inducing click bait for attention in a failing market space. If you want to get the most rage clicks you need a network to spread your articles and create a fake grass roots movement to do it. Wouldn't places like KIA or /v/ be the perfect place to post your fake cup head tutorial video or 'why killing white babies is okay' articles? Doesn't matter if you believe what the content is saying, it just matters you get eyes on it. So for failed journalists becoming moderators (I'm not pointing any fingers here so we're clear) or admins of communities designed to repost your low quality bait makes sense. Same way any time you look into grass roots activism it's always funded by large corps or political agencies. It's never actual grass root responses to things.
Communities like Kotaku in action are run by failed journalists hyping their own click bait articles
I'm sorry. The only Kotaku in Action I know is:
https://communities.win/c/KotakuInAction2
Then you have said nothing, and your words hold no value.
Can a word hold value; when the choice used to suggest it represents the evaluation of perceivable value?
Your words add no value.
a) that implies you consenting to suggested choices as value; while using your own choice to evaluate my choice as of no value.
b) can you have a choice of evaluation without being at the center of balance, and wouldn't that imply balance to be the value for the responding choice of evaluation?
c) "add no(thing)"...how could one perceive nothing and what could one add to everything perceivable?
d) "your words"...are suggested words mine or do I choose to shape them out of perceivable sound? Could words be owned when they represent a reaction to sound?
I'm sorry. I have been too polite with you. Allow me to correct that.
You're a disingenuous shit packed grifter that needs to be banned.