Do you bother to check out Links?

I don’t think I have seen you on here before Firebird978. Are you new to Gransnet? I haven’t noticed any of the threads you describe. I don’t post a lot of links and when I do I generally use tinyurl to avoid long strings of numbers. I also state clearly the nature of the link.

I haven't even noticed repeated links to one site.
I'd like to ask for an example but obviously that would be silly! ?

Who is promoting their own threads? Or 'cross-promoting threads'?

I thought that this was a serious discussion, but it's starting to look like paranoia.

Yes, people make money out of 'the way our data is shared', but you seem to be suggesting that this is more sinister than it is, and linking it to 'hacking' and virus-spreading. It isn't.

A question - who do you suggest should pay for our internet access? do you think that the millions of people employed in servicing websites should work for no pay, and if not, where is the money to pay them going to come from? Or should we be charged to access places like Gransnet (or YouTube, or Google or anywhere)?

I'd be interested to hear how you think our freedom to surf for fun, for information, for shopping, banking, staying in contact with others - all the things we use it for - should be funded.

I know the guidelines firebird, if you have concerns that they are being broken then you should report.
I am guessing this is 'not in the spirit of GN' as its discussing a specific poster.

I haven't noticed anything being "pushed in my face".
If you have issues with what's being posted, speak to GNHQ about it.
If you hope that just being "spiky" will get others to do as you want, you are being silly.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

One of the reasons I like Gransnet is because other people know about lots of things I don’t, and I want to broaden my horizons so I do use the links provided they look legitimate, from news sites etc. I’d be upset if links weren’t posted, it would mean Gransnet becomes just a chat site, which isn’t for me. To manage my iPad (Apple have good security anyway), I just go into my settings and delete the cookies.

Oh, and newspapers made money from ads too - it’s nothing new.

I don’t understand why people care if YouTube or other sites make money from our clicks - they wouldn’t exist otherwise.

Either we accept that our data is used to sell us things or we go back to getting information from out of date books and heavily edited sources such as newspapers. When I say ‘our data is used’ that doesn’t mean that an evil genius is rubbing his hands whilst forming a picture of our personal lives to use against us in some way. Yes, Google knows that I wear certain brands, I enjoy cooking and knitting and probably my political affiliations. But they don’t have a picture of ‘me’ - just that they know which IP address (my online identifier) to use to target ads for those things, which I can ignore if I’m not interested. You can switch off trackers on Amazon and Facebook etc, but you still get ads - they are just for things you don’t want . Try it - it’s amusing for a day or so, but you get sick of ads for gym equipment and smelly candles when you might prefer Masai dresses and knitting needles.

Why would people provide search engines like Google or entertainment/information sources like YouTube free? They cost ££££ to run and keep up to date, and are businesses not charities. The price we pay for being connected to the world online is that we are targeted as consumers.

I don’t see that as sinister, and would rather have information sources monitored by commercial enterprises than by government, as they are in places like China.

Well said Elegran.

I often post an excerpt from an article, along with a link.
It's up to others to decide whether to click on it or not.

It's completely ridiculous to think of limiting the number of links on GN - just ignore them, it's not difficult, or report if you think they are spam.

The internet is full of genuine information, plus some rubbish and some criminals (like Life, really). The best thing is to set your device's internet safety levels so it warns you of stuff from a doubtful source - and then to use your common sense.

In fact, just visiting an information site may get you unwanted ads and daily emails encouraging you to buy stuff you don't want, but is unlikely to expose you to hackers, viruses etc. That happens more after buying things at unbelievable bargain prices from sites that are unsecured (look for https, not http, and a little padlock or a shield before the site name in the name box of your browser) , or from replying to all those Facebook posts that ask what year you were born, how many children you have, what was your first car, your first school, the name of your dog/cat/mother-in-law - all things that add up to a profile of you, and are often set as security questions.

In Europe, every site you visit is required to ask you whether you wish to receive cookies. It takes a few more clicks to refuse them, but it is worth doing. Also every browser programme has ways of setting the level of security. Find out how yours works and set it. For extra protection, install a virus checker like Norton or McAfee and have it scan for trouble regularly.

On choosing which links to follow and which to avoid - If someone who usually posts sensible opinions or info adds a link as a source of more detail on what they have just said on a subject that interests me, then I follow it. If I trust their sense on the subject, then I trust them not to refer me to dodgy sites.

I do prefer to see a short account of what is on the page linked to, and who is the author of it. The link is their statement of where they found those details. and saying a bit about it shows that they have really been there.

If there is no link to a source, then it could just be an opinion, or something vaguely and wrongly remembered, like, "They say that . . . " Much of the misinformation that flies around would vanish if everyone asked "Do they? Who says?" and looked for the original spreader of that particular fake news.

Links to music, jokes, cute kittens and so on are a matter of taste. You won't miss much by not following links, but in a serious discussion you could be missing important research by (dare I say it) an expert.

I'm with M0nica and Iam - and I do use links. I also think it's useful to see where people get the info from.
It explains something about the "angle" of the person posting the link.

People can post what they want within the guidelines I am afraid. We cant have posters deciding how many links are ok. Just dont click if you are worried.

Hear, hear. Thank you for explaining that Firebird . It is tempting to want to share things which we have come across eg on Youtube and which have interested or amused us, but like all good things, should not be overdone. It’s like sharing jokes - sometimes just not worth it.
I do think an indication of what is in a link is essential so that we can choose whether to pursue it or not.

I am not in the slightest bit worried. I use you tube and Google multiple times a day.

Thank you as well, Firebird1978.
A timely reminder and a helpful explanation.

I read some links on politics and news. I’m unimpressed by links to US pseudo psychology articles because they’re not balanced or well researched.

Thanks for that, Firebird978. Interesting and informative and I will certainly heed your words. I am not really sure why we need all these links to prove a point, apart from anything else.

Very rarely. And only if it's something I'm really interested in. I'm quite wary of links.

Every time someone follows a link to an external site they risk having cookies added to their device's memory. Not everyone understands the connection between web cookies and browsing activity, and the associated implications for data privacy and security. Some cyber attacks hijack cookies to get access to and track browsing sessions. I am very reluctant to follow links because of the security risk it poses to my own data security. I wonder if prolific posters of links are even aware or care that their methods are exposing others to danger?

I don’t want third party (aka tracking cookies) collecting data about my online behaviour, then passing it on to advertisers.

YouTube made $29 billion in 2021. Google made $260 billion. These companies claim they don’t sell your data but they certainly monetise it though indirect data sharing e.g. real time bidding. Beware of frequent requests to look at YouTube or use Google products. The more you use them the more you risk your data security.

I think the site managers should crack down on the number of links that are made here. Netiquette is clear, the odd link is allowed, but the guidelines are not being enforced. I don't mind an occasional link to a reputable news source to back up a discussion in News and Politics but anything else I ignore.

I do click on some political links to back up a stated view, which is often useful. If not I just discard them.

I won’t click on “random” links which somebody has chosen for me with the purpose of “educating” me or music links, playlists etc because how is anybody else to know my tastes?
If something is described first, or amusing or relevant to the subject of a thread, by all means, but if it is a section of text, I much prefer it to be cut and pasted, italicised as is the custom on GN with perhaps a link to enable further reading.

I do if I have time, but not usually links to videos or Youtube ones, as I tend to surf GN with the sound off so I'm not disturbing others. I do most of my surging in the evening, and by the time the morning comes and I am available to check out the link the thread has moved on.

Otherwise, yes, I check them out, but as others have said, it depends on whether I know the name of the poster or not. I link things up in my own posts as a way of showing my sources, but usually also cut and past the relevant bit into the post to save people reading the whole article, and for the benefit of those who do't trust links.

If I recognise the name of the poster and I am interested in the topic yes. I've read some interesting articles and learnt a bit.

If it's a name I don't recognise I just pass on by. Especially those obviously advertising something.

Like nanna8 I don't live in the UK and it is often the case that the access is limited so clicking on links is often a waste of time.

That said, I sometimes do read an article that someone has linked to, and I probably have posted links myself, but I often glean the contents from what others say about them further down the thread.

I think my attention span has shrunk a lot lately.