Yeah. I’d think so, but moderation is now going to be done by a different mod or admin, because I let myself get involved. I don’t moderate threads/posts if I get involved.

Having other moderators moderate this, as I’m now a part of this.

It’s not opinion. It’s a fluff piece on how someone made money for their employer.

It’s advertising. For tick-tock or however your spell it, and for Staples, as well as for the content creator.

Either you are willfully ignorant, or your directly tied to this piece.

Calling what I’m saying an opinion is misinformation.

Oh god, this. DEI doesn’t mean they can’t advertise.

You’re in the wrong. I figured I’d let the community show you. This won’t happen again.

Yeah. It’s gray. I agree, but they are a real user (read: not a spam account), plus I was tired of them DMing me constant insults, as I never block a user. Rather than keeping it removed, I figured the users would show them what the community felt.

Advertising:

The activity of attracting public attention to a product or business, as by paid announcements in the print, broadcast, or electronic media.

Oblivion “teaches/informs people about services at Staples”, according to the article.

Her engaging videos showcase little-known Staples services, boosting customer interest and store traffic.

How wouldn’t this be advertising?

It’s soft reporting on someone advertising for their company.

Hell, directly in the article:

Katie Omstead—the President at Lo & Sons, who also makes PR and marketing analysis content on TikTok under the handle @ktomstead—made a video on Feb. 12 that called Oblivion a “content and marketing genius,” and shared what Staples should do going forward.

This is why it was reported so much.

Before you go “it wasn’t paid” I’m damn sure she didn’t do the work or wear the outfit for free. Anything you do for a company on company time is paid.

Wrong instance. There’s no such rule on this instance

I have worked for non-profits.

They are completely allowed to make a profit.

You are mistakenly under the impression that I’m against Mozilla.

If you go back to my original comment, I merely explained what I explained here. Mozilla is a non-profit, not a not-for-profit.

You decided to take that as an attack on Mozilla, for some strange reason, and attacked me. I just turned that same energy back on you.

Did I ever attack Mozilla? Did you attack me?

I couldn’t agree more

I only use Firefox. I’ve only used Firefox since 2000.

They, by their own statements, are a 501( C )3, which is a non-profit, not a not-for-profit.

Sit down.

Non-profit isn’t the same as not-for-profit

Take American Red Cross

They make bank on blood donations. Also, they take in way more than they put out.

non-exclusive

That means we can license all our content to another company, and Reddit would be forced to allow them to fetch it, as we still own it, right?