Why "never" and "strictly necessary"? All that the initial judgment seems to imply is that less spam is better than more spam.
More "spam is never content, spam displaces content."
My only interest, with respect to spam, is that it be managed in a way that minimizes its disruption of the community, in the same way we might want to moderate the use of hate speech, flamewars, and off-topic posts and comments.
And I think you're fundamentally missing how spam works, particularly how uncontested undeleted spam attracts more spam.
Your "argument," such as it is, seems to be that we should moderate spam even beyond the point at which it no longer meaningfully impedes this community's activities, just because it "should never be displayed longer than strictly necessary,"
And from this I conclude that you have never had to deal with spam or spammers in any meaningful sense.
no subject
More "spam is never content, spam displaces content."
My only interest, with respect to spam, is that it be managed in a way that minimizes its disruption of the community, in the same way we might want to moderate the use of hate speech, flamewars, and off-topic posts and comments.
And I think you're fundamentally missing how spam works, particularly how uncontested undeleted spam attracts more spam.
Your "argument," such as it is, seems to be that we should moderate spam even beyond the point at which it no longer meaningfully impedes this community's activities, just because it "should never be displayed longer than strictly necessary,"
And from this I conclude that you have never had to deal with spam or spammers in any meaningful sense.