Regarding salty spam accusations...
Spam may be
- irrelevant or inappropriate messages sent on the internet to a large number of recipients
- a canned meat product made mainly from ham.
Our anti-spam rules are for the first type, and/or anything shared by bots.
Sharing high (but not overwhelming) numbers of political articles onto a political forum, is a grey area (much like the color of some canned meat).
Flooding a forum fill the whole first page of it, would be clearly crossing the line; four threads within the political sub-forum does not.
That said, from the rules:
criticizing statements within an ongoing discussion, is fair game.
So it is not out of line to call it spam, even while it's not spam as far as enforcement of the CoC is concerned.
While it's a tu quoque fallacy, it's also not out of line to call repetitive jokes about it spam.
P.S.
There is indeed a difference between saying someone brought spam to a pot-luck, and they are themselves spam. However, it's pretty immaterial in this case.
...
I'll add that I would prefer they be from a news source which is not locked behind a pay wall; but that is a personal preference on my part.
