Omnibus Stupid MFers in the news thread (Part 2)

The BBQ Pit
801

You don’t have to post ALL the information, just a quick summary. Also, letting the audience know the length of the clip is also a courtesy. If you tell me NOTHING I’m not clicking because that’s a tactic of spammers, scammers, and bad actors. If you don’t tell me the length I also might not click because I’m not going to sit through an hour or more of video to find whatever point you’re tying to make (exception if you give me a time stamp).

On another forum we had a poster who thought it was “funny” to post a link directly to child porn. Fortunately, I missed that one, the mods broke the link. Also before in-line previews were common.

Granted, there are ways to check out a link prior to clicking, but that’s yet another step people are then feeling compelled to do. And not everyone knows how to do that. See above about spammers, scammers, and bad actors.

802

Maybe I’m a delicate snowflake, but I hate opening a video link to find myself blasted with loud, foul, violent, or angry clips. I also will NOT listen to Trump. There’s enough angst and anger and awfulness in the world, I don’t need to subject myself to it when I’m not mentally ready for it.

That 4 second clip was indeed benign and I’m sorry to have caused a stink over such a small thing. But, a 4 second clip could also be someone getting shot in the head, and that I do not want to see, even just a movie clip.

I’ll just go back to my quiet nerdy corner now …

803

Yes, I’ll fifth this tangent (or however many people have complained at this point).

Posting a drive-by link is saying “My time is too valuable to bother to post a summary, I’m going to instead require that an unlimited number of people all have to waste significant time watching a video and trying to reverse-engineer what my point is”

804

But people make such a big deal out of it. Like they’re worried they’ll get a virus on their computer. If you don’t want to click on it, don’t click on it, just like if there’s a post you don’t want to read, you don’t read it.

And, again, it was a joke response in a pit thread.

Apparently, I’ve spoken about this before. Here’s part of something I wrote 12 years ago.

I understand that when it’s a bit.ly or goes to some place many people haven’t heard of, but it’s a youtube link, you could just click on it and see what it is, you know it’s going to be a video of some sort, it’s not going to contain a virus…

To be clear, I fully understand the rules about posting bare links and I generally try not to do it myself, but I just don’t understand why people get so worked up about it. Click on it, don’t click on it, whatever.

It sounds like you’re not going to watch them regardless, so why worry about it? Do you demand the same amount of description for a link to a news or wiki article?

Right click, “open in private window” or the equivalent for your browser. I 100% agree with you there and I make very regular usage of private windows when I want to watch something on youtube without it affecting my suggestions. In fact, I open most links here (youtube or otherwise) that way, just for that reason.

I guess I don’t understand how that would be a problem. If you have a thread about songs about airplanes, wouldn’t it be reasonable to think that a bare youtube link goes to a song about airplanes?

Well, that’s a problem we don’t have here so you don’t need to worry about it. And keep in mind, someone could give a detailed explanation of the video and still link to porn, so a bare link vs one that’s described wouldn’t have made a difference. See: Rickrolling.

805

I don’t worry about it, and I don’t complain about it, either. I was directly answering your question about not understanding.

And, yes, I typically don’t click on any links. YouTube especially, since those don’t even get past the firewall I’m usually behind.

Either a poster makes their point with their own writing or I move on to the next point.

806

And I may get that even if it’s not in the intended link. I just gave up on one I clicked on in another thread because it started with an unskippable full-minute movie preview of a movie that I knew within six seconds that I didn’t want to watch.

Generally, yes; though at least then I know I’ll be seeing print, probably not something flashing light and blaring sound at me. But even a wiki article is better with a few words describing why it was posted.

Why do you think it’s so much harder for you to do that than for all of us to go to your unexplained link?

807

Did I say that?

808

Why not explain it, then?

809

Explain what?

810

Is this the right room for an argument?

811

That’s down the hall.

812

You’re right, it isn’t. Sorry.

813

Yes it is!

814

Of course it goes to a song but what’s the name of the song? It is perhaps the same one I was thinking of adding to the conversation?

815

Moving on because I seem to be defending myself against something I didn’t do. So, unless someone wants to point out the post that I’m being asked to explain…

Tow truck in San Francisco tried to grab a car while it was at a red light with occupants. It sounds like their license has already been revoked and they’ve been in trouble in the past. Not that it’ll go this far, but I see people suggesting what he did could legally be considered, at least, carjacking, possible kidnapping.

816

Got room there for one more? I’ll bring my cats if that helps.

817

Cats are always good! Though it might be a little crowded … I have 12 of my own plus the momma and three kittens I found two weeks ago.

Anyone need a kitten???

818

I was asking why you wanted to post unexplained links in general.

If you haven’t been, then I mixed you up with somebody else, and apologize for it.

Sorry, not now and I hope not for quite a while! I’m living with 4 (two of whom showed up on their own) and try to keep the number here to not more than that. There are four cats and one dog and only me to pat them all.

819

I typically don’t, I just never understood the outrage over it.

820

I wouldn’t call it outrage. I just find it annoying.