• mrmaplebar@fedia.io
      11·
      8 hours ago

      You can do one better by posting this to the community itself. (Bonus is that it’ll probably annoy Beep when people repost the things that he posts without attribution.)

      • Omega@piefed.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        2·
        50 minutes ago

        Damn, I have seen some god-awful takes on this corner of the internet. So it says something that this is easily one of the worst. What the fuck, OP?

        • rudyharrelson@lemmy.radio
          39·
          12 hours ago

          I think “attribution” might be more apropos than “advertising” when it comes to an artist’s signature. Of course the presence of an artist’s signature will advertise their authorship, but the signature’s purpose isn’t inherently trying to drive you to a website/patreon/whatever; it’s letting you know who put in the effort to make the art.

                • TheTechnician27@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  29·
                  12 hours ago

                  A screenshot of the OP's text body with a link to old.reddit.com

                  This is an advertisement for Reddit, Inc. that most people won’t even realize they’re being served until they click the link. I’m not contending the link is a big deal in a vacuum; I’m contending you’ve actively substituted a completely benign – even quite helpful – advertisement with a slightly yet definitely worse advertisement and are claiming this is rooted in staunch anti-advertisement ethics.

        • TheTechnician27@lemmy.worldEnglish
          131·
          12 hours ago

          Giving credit to the original author – which I understand you did in the post body – is advertising only in the most benign sense. It is not intrusive; it is not misleading; it is not manipulative; it is not malicious; it is not meaningfully harmful in any way.

          I understand hating watermarks. But this isn’t someone slapping an iFunny or whatever bullshit brand onto an image completely unearned like a barnacle; the artist created a work for you to have for free (as in beer, and given memes, mostly as in freedom too), and the only thing they’re asking is that you preserve this small bit of credit. No, it’s not charity, but – speaking as someone who does volunteer work nobody will ever materially compensate me for – whoooo cares?

          In an Internet awash with faceless, generic slop that nobody and everybody created at the same time, an artist’s watermark is one of the few ways people can attach an identity to their work. You definitely realize that removing credit from the image and transferring it to the post body isn’t identical – else you wouldn’t do it. Yet you’re still advertising for them, just in an intentionally kneecapped way that profits a known-malignant, multibillion-dollar corporation. What you’re doing as a substitute is somehow worse – transferring part of the advertisement to RDDT (136.18).

          No rational way of looking at this makes sense.

    • TheTechnician27@lemmy.worldEnglish
      231·
      12 hours ago

      Man, Adam Ellis’ work isn’t, like, mind-blowing to me, but I would’ve never believed how good he actually is if you told me before he escaped from BuzzFeed. This was my only glimmer of hope at the time:

      Loss parody where Adam enters his office building, shouts "Nobody told me it was donut day!" (1st panel), runs to the donut box while seeing coworkers eat donuts (2nd and 3rd panels), and discovers all the donuts are gone (4th panel).

    • galaxy_nova@lemmy.worldEnglish
      41·
      11 hours ago

      Is there a way for someone to get mod control over this community so they can be banned?