Just curious. If someone you don't trust implicitly to respect your preferences sends you a link to content (primarily a video) with no preview, do you click on the link?

I'm probably not gonna watch any video unless @catsalad posted it.

@binsk

@us3r1d @binsk Psst... Click me!

👇👇👇
https://cdn2.miau.pub/media_attachments/files/110/586/096/513/440/466/original/c79125276d7930d1.mp4

@binsk give me a hint or GTFO

@akamran I have this argument with an online friend who keeps sending me stuff of variable quality. Some is indeed funny, some of it is so far off that I've wasted every second of my time on it. She pretty much knows that she better sell me on what she sends me, or I'm just not gonna watch it.

@setsly agreed. which is why "haha, this is funny" or "so true" comments provide minimal to no value. maybe we're all too used to autogenerated preview thumbnails.

@catsalad 😐

(😆 )

@binsk @catsalad I don't click the link most of the time when I do trust the sender, so I'm a hard no about this.

@catsalad @us3r1d @binsk I clicked on it but that domain resolves to 127.0.0.1 (I'm GeoDNS-blocked)

@binsk One thing I really truly hate is when people just send a link. They won't say whatever it is they really want to say, just a link. So I'm supposed to click, watch/read all the way through, and then know what it was they wanted to say.

Why can't they just say it and then provide the link afterwards as just an in case it's needed thing?

And so many people are still linking to bad places. Either way, if they dump a random link on me, most of the time I have to fire up the Tor browser, wait for everything to load and connect, and then visit the site that way. 99% of the time I'm not going to do that and just walk away.

@binsk

I am one of those people who don't feel compelled to click links sent to me. I don't care if it was malicious and requires a proprietary binary blob my system doesn't have, it's likely meh.

Send pictures of cats. Don't send links, send the actual kitty 😻

@binsk I kept it simple, if it’s a dubious source, it’s (the source) is muted/blocked.

@noisytoot @binsk @us3r1d Maybe this will work. It's @alice⁠'s cat fart post :3

https://lgbtqia.space/@alice/110586124538215952

@catsalad @binsk @us3r1d @alice Unfortunately not. I can view the text of the post but still not the image: lgbtqia.space geoblocks the UK and my method of bypassing it (specific routes for the IP address through a VPN interface) works for lgbtqia.space itself but not the CDN used for images (which uses GeoDNS so I'd need to use a DNS server hosted elsewhere to bypass it). I plan to set that up but I haven't done so yet.

@catsalad @noisytoot @binsk @us3r1d @alice hahahaah oh, we'd forgotten that

@noisytoot @binsk @alice @us3r1d Here you go :3

🐈💨

@catsalad @noisytoot @binsk @us3r1d @alice xd

@catsalad @noisytoot @binsk @us3r1d @alice the best part is how the other cats turn to look, and clearly know who did it

@binsk @catsalad I’m very interested in what “preferences” means here and why this would change my answer.

If someone I know (but may not entirely vibe with) sends me something and I at least believe it’s not malicious, I have to click it to even know what it is. Isn’t this equivalent to “do you arbitrarily just ignore things people say to you”?

@jason In this particular case, I have a friend who is extremely online, has worked as a therapist for incarcerated folks, and as such, visits areas of the internet I do not in order to keep current on what certain groups are doing (like 4chan or whatever equivalent--I don't keep current). She will find things in those places she finds interesting and share them with me, but to someone outside of her niche, there is an element of "good god, why did you send me that?"

It's not that I wouldn't trust her to hold my wallet, so I don't use the trust-the-person metric. I'd trust her to hold my wallet, but I wouldn't open a link from her.

@binsk no, but maybe not for the reason most people think.

I absolutely detest video format in general. On top of that, my hatred towards YT is another level. So unless I trust you enough to do a grocery run for you, I'm absolutely not touching YT for you.

@BigShellEvent very valid!

@BigShellEvent @binsk
I can definitely relate to that.
This30MinutesVideoCouldHaveBeenANicelyWrittenBlogPost.jpg

@myosotis_scans @binsk oh but how to fit 203848 Hungry Jacks Amazon Paypal Coke KFC Nestle ads into a succinct well written personal article? What if Google CEO's bonus loses $0.048 over this?

@BigShellEvent @binsk I'm so sorry I accidentally brought down the whole advertisement industry 😭
but it feels good so I'll f- do it again. 😎

@jason @binsk @catsalad In this case yes, absolutely. Adding context when sending a link is, like, the bare minimum of effort. If the person sending the link can’t be bothered to even do that, it can’t be very important.

Furthermore even if you do trust the sender, do you know for sure that their account hasn’t been compromised? Not worth the risk.