Projects talk:Operation Disrespectful Nod

Argument For Why Attacking Sites' Ad-revenue Is Justified

This is a point that matters to neutral observers, and to people who are pro-GG but unsure about getting involved in disrespectful nod. It is also a point that is seldom made clear. Please include it in this (or a related) article. If any assistance is needed with this then I have saved the words of one 8chan.co/gg/ anon to use as a reference:

"The people responsible for the ethics lapses and propaganda pieces think that they are above the market, but also can't even exist without it. There's nothing stopping these people from all becoming hobbyist bloggers and literally doing it for free, but they feel completely entitled to their payola, despite being largely dependent upon the very people they are attacking.

Ad revenue is not some nebulous source of free money, it's a business partnership with a company who rightfully expects that the actions of whom they are being endorsed by should not reflect negatively on their own products and services.

When you insult and demean a large proportion of your readership, act like insolent children, and yet still try to take the moral highground, then it's damn straight that you shouldn't be 'entitled' to that ad-revenue. It's frankly hilarious how much entitled whinging these people have done in response to this, including insulting said companies directly when they don't want to play ball anymore."--Fitzgerald (talk) 04:50, 1 November 2014 (EDT)