None of this is true, for the many reasons I and others have explained, including
@tolmie's hairdoo , who quite literally confirmed the information I was sharing about how blues contribute to sustaining the negative coverage of City.
In fact, my stance is literally based on logic; yours is the one seemingly based on emotion, with hyperbole unrelated to reality.
The thread is not going to be killed by not posting direct links to
negative articles. Nor will more people quote articles verbatim. They will just be removed if some do, like they always have been (again, I can say that with confidence—as TH can about the inner workings of “new media”—given I spent many years doing just that as a mod).
And my post about the extreme detractors was about the likes of Delaney, for which blues likely make up a much larger portion of engagement than they think, you included. They craft their articles, videos, and podcasts specifically to outrage as many blues as possible, so they’ll rage-share with their networks, who rage-share with their networks, and so on.
Blues are much more likely to distribute the articles in disgust than the rival fans that hate us (the rivals fans simple read and comment they agree and discuss how City are cheaters), so we are becoming the main target for the divel because rage-sharing is where the real money is made (impressions trump comments for engagement metrics because of the way advertising revenue works).
Beyond that, why any blue would want to help sustain the negative coverage, in however a small way, is beyond my understanding. It doesn’t matter how large the contribution, why would you want to contribute at all?
