The author didn't submit this to HN. I read his blog but I'm not on X so I do like when he covers things there. He's submitted 10 times in last 62 days.
Now check how many times he links to his blog in comments.
Actually, here, I'll do it for you: He has made 13209 comments in total, and 1422 of those contain a link to his blog[0]. An objectively ridiculous number, and anyone else would've likely been banned or at least told off for self-promotion long before reaching that number.
[0] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
But this isn't my site and I don't get to pick the rules.
Perhaps not other thought leaders.
I would be curious to know:
How many clicks out from HN, and much time on page on average (on his site), and much subsequent pro-social discussion on HN, did those links generate versus the average linkout here? Wouldn’t change the rules but I do suspect[0] it would repaint self-promotion as something more genuine.
Nice way of saying grifters.
You're bringing up essentially the same non-argument that dang himself used when he recently personally told off someone else for pointing out the same rule breaking behavior. It boils down to "People upvote it and comment on it so it must be good content regardless of which rules it breaks" which is a harmful way of thinking, the social media version of "laws are only for the poor".
If getting enough upvotes and replies elevates one above the rules, it should be clearly stated in said rules, but I have a feeling it never will be because it's obviously not a good look.
A classic skit on 'Thought Leadership': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZBKX-6Gz6A
I think 7 or 8 out of 10 would be a bad look.
How many of the comments without links were in a thread that started from the links? I'd guess at least some 2 or 3 out of 10.
What about just last year? We are probably close to 7 out of 10.
It's annoying.