3 ms·
That's fucking dodgy/unacceptable. I know they did this for another site that gave money to people for spamming their connections with links to their website, w
by make3 10y ago
That's fucking dodgy/unacceptable. I know they did this for another site that gave money to people for spamming their connections with links to their website, which I guess is borderline acceptable. In the case of telegram though, there is no redeeming circumstance of any kind, they're just censoring for a business advantage [without it being directly visible to the user, which is even worse], and that's just really unacceptable for me
- SEMW 10y ago> censoring Classifying a recipient receiving a message containing exactly what the sender sent as 'censorship' just because they don't auto-link it is taking the word to new heights of rhetorical meaninglessness. Dodgy and scummy, sure. Mildly inconvenient for the recipient, definitely. Censorship, no.
- sangnoir 10y ago> just because they don't auto-link it is taking the word to new heights of rhetorical meaninglessness Whatsapp not only blocks auto-linking, but they also prevent the link from being copied to the clipboard. "Censorship" sounds about right.