3 ms·

It's not about not understanding the web or the concept of linking. It's a reaction to a fundamental way that users are engaging with content. User behavior

It's not about not understanding the web or the concept of linking. It's a reaction to a fundamental way that users are engaging with content. User behavior has changed online, people are conditioned to tiktok / twitter length information snips, having off the cuff reactions, being the first to be outraged, etc. It used to be that if someone linked something the BULK of the people who saw that link and were interested would click it and if they wanted to engage, they likely engaged on the site hosting the content first... now the bulk to the people don't click the link to read and instead engage only on their social media platform of choice. This leads to: * Increasingly divisive click bait titles * Less informed populace (although they FEEL more informed) * Echo chambers where people get re-enforced on their view of the TITLE (not content) because they are sharing and commenting with likeminded people rather than getting opposing opinions on the source website. Not saying this bill is the solution but I disagree that it's being considered because people don't understand how linking on the web works.

pessimizer 4y ago
> It's a reaction to a fundamental way that users are engaging with content. It's public intervention to preserve a business model by deliberately inserting hurdles to the access of information.
klyrs 4y ago
> It used to be that if someone linked something the BULK of the people who saw that link and were interested would click it and if they wanted to engage... I find myself reading comments more than news articles these days because almost every site is littered with modal popups, floating autoplay videos, dickbars covering most of the screen, consent banners, notification consent, location consent, not to mentioned ads, after every paragraph and sometimes almost impossible to scroll past without clicking. The internet has become extremely user hostile, and the true irony here (I can't believe I'm saying this) is that social media sites are focused on engagement so they're actually motivated to not make their UX a painful experience.
actuator 4y ago
> now the bulk to the people don't click the link to read and instead engage only on their social media platform of choice. but this is the fundamental issue with the bill, if I am hanging out with my friends IRL and I bring up a news report, the discussion happens between us without them going to the media site. They are confused about what happens when offline behaviour moves online. As I said if they were really bothered about the users reading the title/subtitle from the news report on the social media site, all they need to do is to stop the bot from crawling and not add OG tags. That way a user just sees a hyperlink. It was mostly media sites who added OG tags willingly so that their content looked good in the feed.

pessimizer 4y ago

> It's a reaction to a fundamental way that users are engaging with content. It's public intervention to preserve a business model by deliberately inserting hurdles to the access of information.

klyrs 4y ago

> It used to be that if someone linked something the BULK of the people who saw that link and were interested would click it and if they wanted to engage... I find myself reading comments more than news articles these days because almost every site is littered with modal popups, floating autoplay videos, dickbars covering most of the screen, consent banners, notification consent, location consent, not to mentioned ads, after every paragraph and sometimes almost impossible to scroll past without clicking. The internet has become extremely user hostile, and the true irony here (I can't believe I'm saying this) is that social media sites are focused on engagement so they're actually motivated to not make their UX a painful experience.

actuator 4y ago

> now the bulk to the people don't click the link to read and instead engage only on their social media platform of choice. but this is the fundamental issue with the bill, if I am hanging out with my friends IRL and I bring up a news report, the discussion happens between us without them going to the media site. They are confused about what happens when offline behaviour moves online. As I said if they were really bothered about the users reading the title/subtitle from the news report on the social media site, all they need to do is to stop the bot from crawling and not add OG tags. That way a user just sees a hyperlink. It was mostly media sites who added OG tags willingly so that their content looked good in the feed.