You’re totally correct on that. It’s my personal self-inflicted limitation. And no, that’s not quite fair for me to beef about it here.
I’m trying to drum up support for everyone blocking Xitter so it dies the death it should. A better replacement cannot arise while it exists, and Elmo ensures it’ll never be any good.
But a content-free post containing a link to a vid or a content-free post containing a link to a Xit look the same from this user’s perspective. Which was the point / whine I was making.
I guess I’m the one who instigated this hijack with that link to an old margarine commercial’s catchphrase. My apologies to those who have issues with clicking on such without a bit of warning posted with it as to what kind of link it is and what it might concern. I understand why you might not want to for a number of reasons. Living in Beijing, plenty of links here don’t always show for me even when I’m using a VPN. And, yeah, YouTube is going down the road of advertisements being longer than the actual content.
So, I’ll try to remember to state what kind of link I’m posting and a bit of what it concerns so one can decide if it’s worth their while to click and view. I’ll also try to remember to post how long a video I link to is.
Only if the person posting both doesn’t know what the fuck they’re doing and post both without making a preview in the post. Both YouTube videos and tweets can show everything at once in a post when done right.
When done incorrectly, you get a bare link which is absolutely worthy of criticism. But that has nothing to do with blocking a site, it has to do with a poster that doesn’t know what they’re doing and their posts are of poor quality.
But I agree that absent a preview that shows everything in the post, any bare link is lazy shit.
Two men shove boulders off ancient rock formation in Nevada, wrecking it, video shows
A video posted to social media shows two men rolling boulders over a cliff at an ancient rock formation in Nevada, National Park Service rangers reported.
Drat! At least one of them has already passed his genes to the next generation:
“Don’t fall, daddy!” a girl screams in the video
Good job, dude, destroying an ancient formation in front of your child.
An Australian stupid mutherfucker who was accused of raping a woman but managed to get off the charge via a misconduct offence of a juror in the trial, brought a defamation charge against a media outlet…and LOST.
That’s an example of what I mentioned in my post. If you want to catch the guys, don’t blur their faces! (The KLAS link in my post has still frames of their faces.)
It’s one thing for the police to put full-face pix on their website or Facebook (heh) or whatever, and it’s another for a media outlet that got the images or vids from an unofficial source. Of course if the cops release the images / vid to the media, then I’d sure hope the media is smart enough to realize they’re off the hook for publishing stuff unblurred. I hope.
I agree they had no expectation of privacy while committing the crime. Whether there’s any room for them to object to being publicized is a potentially different matter. See @kambuckta’s post 4 posts up where (more or less) some criminals in Oz sued the media for publicizing their crimes. And lost, but it still cost the media company money to fight over.
I’m really grasping at straws here trying imagine any reason for the media to have blurred the faces. Unless the first images they received from [wherever] came already blurred and we’re now looking in the wrong place for the wrong culprit on who did the blurring and why. Then later the media got some unblurred images from some other source and published those too.
All guesswork on my part and worth every penny you’ve paid for it.
