Content of links

[steelpillow]

I seem to recall a ruling some time ago that if you post a link to material that others have problems accessing, you should also post the gist of the content. Otherwise, posting a failed link is just an infuriating rudeness. But there is nothing about that in the current forum rules.

Aprops of this, quite a few of us value our privacy and security, and will not enable javascript on social media sites such as Twitter. There was some effort at the time to get tweets posted beneath the links to them. Not any more. I am now told by an admin, who chose to remain anonymous, that it works for them so there is no problem as far as they are concerned. Gee, thanks for hearing me, buddy.

Am I just imagining a golden past? Have things changed? What should we be doing going forward? In my case, voting with my feet is beginning to appeal.

 

[flateric]

OK, people can copy twit text and picture for you. What they should do about video?

 

[Orionblamblam]

Am I just imagining a golden past? Have things changed?

Mandela Effect.

 

[Orionblamblam]

OK, people can copy twit text and picture for you. What they should do about video?

Video *could* be downloaded, then uploaded. Kind of a headache, though.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I think I once said that posts of links to paywalled content should have a textual summary so people know what is behind the paywall.

For this example, the contents are publicly available, but the you have chosen not to view them for your own reasons. It's not exactly the same scanario. Asking for the tweets to be deleted because you can't see them is also... odd. Why not ask for the moderator to add a description?

It would still make sense to just include a single line description of the content. I don't think its a rule though, more etiquette. It is polite to explain what is available at the link.

 

[steelpillow]

I think I once said that posts of links to paywalled content should have a textual summary so people know what is behind the paywall.

For this example, the contents are publicly available, but the you have chosen not to view them for your own reasons. It's not exactly the same scanario. Asking for the tweets to be deleted because you can't see them is also... odd. Why not ask for the moderator to add a description?

It would still make sense to just include a single line description of the content. I don't think its a rule though, more etiquette. It is polite to explain what is available at the link.

You call me "odd". That is not polite.
Thank you for clearing up the issue at hand, anyway. I now know to avoid tweety people wherever they may be found.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Asking for the tweets to be deleted because you can't see them is also... odd.

You call me "odd".

That's... not what was said. The *request* is said to be "odd," not the requester.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Asking for the tweets to be deleted because you can't see them is also... odd.

You call me "odd".

That's... not what was said. The *request* is said to be "odd," not the requester.

If you desire the contents of Twitter posts to be included in the post along with the link, deleting the post is the opposite of helpful, as now nobody knows what the content is/was. So yes, that did seem like an odd request.