4 ms·
It could probably be argued that the standard is ambiguous as what content goes where is up to the creator of it. However, I think as a user it's fairly obviou
by blihp 8y ago
It could probably be argued that the standard is ambiguous as what content goes where is up to the creator of it. However, I think as a user it's fairly obvious that using it for clickbait and teaser headlines/articles rather than at least a complete thought is abusive. It's probably a non-trivial part of the reason its popularity with end users has waned in the much the same way spam polluted peoples email inboxes.
- TeMPOraL 8y agoYup. Standards from that age were written with friendly, cooperative actors in mind. The Internet is no longer a friendly place. Unfortunately, you can't just force people to not be greedy. (Clickbait itself is an example of that. You absolutely can get to the point in the title. But most media sources don't, because it's not their goal to inform you - their goal is to just exploit you for all they can.
- matt4077 8y agoIt's also unfriendly, and not very cooperative, to dismiss the stated wishes and motivations of content creators to save clicking on a link. Similarly unfriendly is assuming bad faith, i. e. "most media sources don't [seek to] inform you - their goal is to just exploit you". Yeah, yeah, I know. You'd gladly spoil the writers you read by deigning to visit, if only they didn't use javascript/have big images that load slowly/used your favorite font/...
- Dylan16807 8y agoNobody's wishes about link clicks should matter one bit except the user's.