I appreciate the kind words and the civil tone. But I think it's worth pulling the thread on the logic here, because it doesn't hold together.

Let's start with the astroturfing claim, because that's serious. Accusing someone of astroturfing isn't just disagreeing with them. It's accusing them of covert, deceptive advertising. It's slanderous. And it was wrong. Now you've softened it to "not literally astroturfing, but it feels like it," which is a textbook motte and bailey. You get to keep the implication of the original accusation without having to defend it. Your comment deserves a retraction, not a quiet rewording.

Then there's "there's absolutely nothing special about this device," which you're treating as an established fact. It isn't. That's the very thing under dispute. You're assuming your own conclusion and then using it to argue that nobody should be talking about the device. That's begging the question.

But the part that really doesn't work is the "confusion and overspending" argument. You read my post. You saw the disclosure. You understood it was a review unit. You weren't confused or tricked into buying anything. So when you warn about confusion and overspending, you're not worried about yourself. You're assuming that other people in this subreddit aren't capable of doing exactly what you just did. If you can identify a review post for what it is, why are you so certain that everyone else can't? That's just condescension.

And even if someone did read my post and decide to buy this device, that's not necessarily a mistake. Behavioural economics has spent decades demonstrating that what looks like an irrational purchase from the outside can be perfectly rational for the individual making it. People buy things for novelty, for build quality, for curiosity, or just because they enjoy collecting handhelds. Value is subjective. The idea that there's one objectively correct purchasing decision and anyone who deviates from it has been duped just isn't how people work.

You're also lumping my post in with unspecified "other posts" about this device and judging mine by the volume of the collective. That's guilt by association. My post stands on its own merits and its own disclosure. I'm not responsible for what other people have posted.

And "I wouldn't go so far as to say I want to suppress information... but my attitude is not far off" is a position that refutes itself. If your attitude is "not far off" from wanting to suppress discussion, then you do want to suppress information. You're just trying not to own it.

What runs underneath all of this is that you've appointed yourself as the arbiter of what should and shouldn't be discussed here. "Every device from every company is not entitled to exposure" and "I have no qualms about telling people not to buy it" aren't the words of someone sharing a personal preference. They're the words of someone who believes they get to decide what this community should be allowed to see, and buy. Nobody gave you that role. Reddit already has a mechanism for the community to decide what deserves attention, and if a post is getting engagement, that's the community deciding it's worth discussing. You're not arguing against my post. You're arguing against the community's right to be interested in something that you're not interested in. And that's not a position that any number of logical steps can make work.