Publication policy on third-party promotional material

[Keith Hall Barnett]

To eliminate confusion and minimize future questions regarding the publication of material that may be considered promotional, I recommend the following steps be taken:

1. Website maintainers, content producers, community organizers, and interested community members discuss and agree upon a definition of what will be considered promotional material.

2. Decide whether such material will be published on the website or not.

3. If it is decided that there will be promotional material allowed on the website, discuss and define any conditions or requirements for such materials.

4. Formalize and make known the policy adopted regarding the website's publication of promotional materials by including this in the Contribution guide or by creating an Editorial Policy document.

It is my opinion that deciding on these issues now will save us time and frustration in the future.

[Istora Mandiri]

This issue is indeed complex, and I'll put my thoughts forward.

There's always a risk associated with promoting projects, so disclaimers are crucial. I think we need a balance between a free approach and some ground rules. However, creating a comprehensive moderation system for everything is resource-intensive and could lead to frequent vetos.

Here's our dilemma: if we're strict and audit projects, we take on editorial responsibility. If we're not, the site is just a platform with a "don't trust, verify" disclaimer. Either way, there are potential pitfalls.

In the apps section, the "platform not publisher" model suggests listing all apps, including scams, due to resource limitations. We could either list everything or nothing to stay neutral. Determining the legitimacy of app removal requests could be tricky.

Taking an editorial stance complicates things. For the blog, one option is to split content into two sections: "Pure News" for etc protocol-specific content and "Editorials" for opinionated content. Both would have disclaimers.

I understand this is a complex issue, and my opinion might not align with everyone's, but let's work together to find a balance that ensures transparency, fairness, and alignment with our ethos and objectives.

Welcome comments from @DonaldMcIntyre and @gitr0n1n

[Keith Hall Barnett]

I have published an essay voicing my concerns about product-promoting copy found here.

[ronin]

My opinions have been expressed to the very real dangers of Donald new promotional material. I agree with @TheCrowbill's article. We are already starting to see the negative effects of @DonaldMcIntyre 's promotional material.

Example: PnD projects in the Hebe ecosystem are catching the signal that Donald is shilling their stuff through the website:
ethereumclassic/tweets-etc_network#305
Donald's comment is on in that PR, since he is featuring the PnD kids shitcoin in other articles/walk throughs.

Just note: Now we have ETC Coop funding Hebe and the shitcoin circles. While Donald write articles with images featuring these shitcoins in them. You've been a risk to this project for a long time Donald. You're easily corrupted and influenced. From the treasury, conensus algo change, to these shitcoin communities clicking your youtube videos. I've been correct about a lot over the years- this stuff isn't good for the network. It'll blow up on itself though. How many users it damages is the unknown.