I edited my previous comment to point out that the author chose to put all the information in different places. Screen Rant isn't paying. His complaint about screen rant is they're producing so many articles to hit SEO he as a solo can't compete. That's not paying for screen time. Above I called it hitting all the topics because someone cares about something, and there's so much media.
If you reread the article, notice how short it is? Because all the information requires you to click to read another article. Doesn't that mean this author is also manipulating SEO while complaining about it? I had to read 4 articles to understand his complaint, and declined a pdf download.
Ok, I think I understand the confusion. You are correct that there is no direct proof of Valnet paying for visibility for any of its subsidiaries (screenrant). It is heavily implied when the pieces are put together, and I instantly assumed it was the obvious conclusion based on the circumstances.
Valnet has threatened legal action over a series of articles and social media posts. The threat itself is suspicious. If all they were doing is spamming articles, what would it matter for some internet journo to point it out? But if there is money changing hands behind the scenes then the threat makes much more sense.
I think the legal action is appropriate based on what they allow their staff to say. My example of Picard is really a good example. It was torn to shreds as woke bullshit. This campaign against them tarnished their image.
Really? What exactly did they allow their staff to say? I'm sure you wouldn't say so if they were just pointing out weird congruencies with Google search and saying that it's not good journalism to spam articles for high visibility. That would be rather tame for a legal threat.
I edited my previous comment to point out that the author chose to put all the information in different places. Screen Rant isn't paying. His complaint about screen rant is they're producing so many articles to hit SEO he as a solo can't compete. That's not paying for screen time. Above I called it hitting all the topics because someone cares about something, and there's so much media.
If you reread the article, notice how short it is? Because all the information requires you to click to read another article. Doesn't that mean this author is also manipulating SEO while complaining about it? I had to read 4 articles to understand his complaint, and declined a pdf download.
Ok, I think I understand the confusion. You are correct that there is no direct proof of Valnet paying for visibility for any of its subsidiaries (screenrant). It is heavily implied when the pieces are put together, and I instantly assumed it was the obvious conclusion based on the circumstances.
Valnet has threatened legal action over a series of articles and social media posts. The threat itself is suspicious. If all they were doing is spamming articles, what would it matter for some internet journo to point it out? But if there is money changing hands behind the scenes then the threat makes much more sense.
I think the legal action is appropriate based on what they allow their staff to say. My example of Picard is really a good example. It was torn to shreds as woke bullshit. This campaign against them tarnished their image.
Really? What exactly did they allow their staff to say? I'm sure you wouldn't say so if they were just pointing out weird congruencies with Google search and saying that it's not good journalism to spam articles for high visibility. That would be rather tame for a legal threat.