>>29229555
Nothing how:
1. You didn't deny you are related or affiliated with that company and that your job is to ad-drop that site's content. Nobody is buying that you are just le epik vid editor who deliberately makes small focusing on the guys ass or balls while teasing on the girl.
2. You can pack way more in 4mb than you do because unlike the marketing snakes like you, actual anons would focus on good, enticing content. Not cliff-hanger clips to drive traffic to your site.
>But I did?
Yes, what you are being paid to advertised, or potentially out of your own self-interest since you are likely involved somehow. It's not unusual at all for smaller "creators", or even mid-sized media outlets to plug their content on social media to boost their traffic. Youtubers, ecelebs, and even fucking breitbart news kept doing it on /pol/. Doesn't take genius to see through the bullshit.
>>29229674
Are you dense? They obviously want traffic to their pay-walled website. As you say, in the age and day of infinite free porn, the pay2play website model is dying out and the only way to keep it afloat is to give little cliffhanger teasers for people to crowd to their full videos.
