RE: The Daily Coverup -- Transparency Under Attack.
Your definition of spam is incomplete, as relevant comments to posts aren't spam. @transparencybot's comments aren't spam, as they directly comment on the post's relevance to the community, and part of that relevance is that they are advertising.
Buying botvotes is advertising, which is closer to the definition of spam than you should feel comfortable with.
Just because you didn't ask for comments relevant to your post in ways you would prefer not to discuss doesn't make them spam. That position hints at a desire to censor opinion you disagree with, rather than support as free speech.
Just because you don't like it doesn't make it spam. If you post on social media, you are inviting relevant comments, and comments on your ad strategy are relevant to your post if you are advertising.
So, your projection of masturbatory spam-loving on @ideafarm is just revelatory of your own 'thing'.
If you would have read the entire context of the conversation you would have seen that I don't mind the posts that transparency bot leaves. I just provided the definition and said that his was incorrect. I actually followed him because his response to others is quite entertaining.
I don't mind a difference of opinion I do mind uninformed responses.
Either way doesn't matter much now as I have muted you and won't even know if you respond.
I note that people incapable of conforming their conception of reality to the actual thing end up incapable of dealing with it.
Thanks for muting me, so I can display my true character in my response, knowing you won't be seeing it.
Others will, and that's the point of social media.
Not advertising your posts to your peers, like a business to it's customers.
I note that your character is revealed by your actions, and treating your peers as business opportunities speaks volumes about your exceptionalism in your own eyes.