His content is copy/pasted for profit, and that is not decent behavior as I previously pointed out in comments explaining my downvote.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
His content is copy/pasted for profit, and that is not decent behavior as I previously pointed out in comments explaining my downvote.
Most of the content anywhere in the world is not original. If all the publications had to be original, there would be almost no content and it would not be shared. The bad is not that in my opinion. The bad thing would be that he seized the credit saying that the content is his. If you give credit to the person who owns the content, it is actually beneficial because you are advertising that person for their work.
Of course you are free to cast your votes and your power as you see fit. That is your power and opinion, which are respected. However, even if the posts weren't done "decently," that's irrelevant.
What is relevant is that there are other people who enjoy this content, whether it was originally his or not. If it weren't for him in this case, many users would not even know about this content or all the credits that he gives about the true origin of the content.
Nothing new under the sun. Blah, blah, blah. If it's about sharing the content, he can decline payout. You are correct, he is not claiming credit. It's still low-effort copy/paste links, and that is apparently all that he does. You can see the stats here. No engagement with the community through comments and discussion. This is approaching spam regardless of attribution.