NEW YORK, Feb 7 (Reuters Breakingviews) - Social media platform Reddit, which helps its users “dive into anything,” may finally plunge into the public markets. The 19-year-old company made over $800 million in sales last year, at least 20% more than in 2022, according to Bloomberg. But a dearth of profit this late into its existence portends the lack of a real business model, suggesting it’s still not ready for public company life.
https://www.reuters.com/breakingviews/investors-will-say-ok-boomer-aging-reddit-2024-02-07/
Original link: https://www.reuters.com/breakingviews/investors-will-say-ok-boomer-aging-reddit-2024-02-07/
I don’t like it when the archive link is the main link because I can’t tell what the source is without clicking it. In this case, it broke the site entirely
Here’s the original:
https://www.reuters.com/breakingviews/investors-will-say-ok-boomer-aging-reddit-2024-02-07/
Archive links are cool, but they have the potential for spam and trickery. Just put them in the body of the post
I don’t often post news articles, and this is actually my first post at all from this account, so I do welcome feedback in learning how to do it better. However, I am not sure that I understand most of what you are saying. Anyway thank you for sharing the link for others if you think it will help them somehow:-).
First, the linked page says right at the top where the original came from?
I do not know the security considerations there - I would have presumed that was strictly under the control of Ghostarchive, but I do not know if it could be spoofed. Anyway I will defer this topic as another consequence of the spam one that makes you want to not click the link in the first place, rather than an issue on its own.
Second, I can view the entire article (ending with “But investors then will be buying Reddit on a leap of faith, rather than old-fashioned discipline.”, then “Follow @AnitaRamaswamy, on X”), so I think whatever issue there might be on your end. Although I did have to hunt around for the “Continue without supporting us” to click on in that horrid & giant half-page advertisement blocker (the modal kind that shades out the entire background until you deal with it - also there’s no obvious “X” to close it, and the text is not in the top right, nor bottom right, but in the bottom left so definitely forcing you to pay attention to it, if you want to read the article). I guess that got through whatever process Ghostarchive uses to strip such things away - although at least all the ads are gone (in multiple browsers that I look at this link with), and that’s not nothing:-).
Btw I tried the wayback machine internet archive first, but it failed to find the page, so this Ghostarchive was my second attempt, and since it worked I just went with it.
Third, what do you mean have the potential for spam and trickery? Can you point me to something to read more about that?
Anyway I added it to the main body as you suggested. It looks odd like that b/c for some reason that link was both already there (in the quote block), yet refused to show up for some reason, until I added something after it - presumably some internal coding mechanics for this community.
Anyway, send me more to read if you are interested.
Yea no problem, and thanks for caring a lot about it :) appreciate it
It’s a pretty minor thing in the case of your post since, as you said, people can access the link easily after. That’s how I got the link I commented.
The format I prefer seeing is
The main advantage is that a lot of apps will use the link to generate a preview image, and sometimes put the base domain. When the archive link is used, there is no preview image and the base domain is the archive site, offering much less information.
So if someone wanted to spread articles from a bad site, people wouldn’t see that it’s from the bad site until they clicked and opened the post (which not everyone does). You could also put a title saying it’s from a news site (ex. Reuters), but actually put something awful in the actual link. Without a preview, people won’t be able to skip it. Also if you know you don’t like a particular site, it’s harder to block it if it’s hidden behind an archive link.
It’s basically all the same issues with the URL shorteners, which is why shortener domains are blocked in a lot of places.
As for the broken site, it is on my end but it’s likely affecting other people with a similar setup. I get this message whereas the actual article loads fine.
This is less important though because I know sometimes the opposite happens, where the archive link works but the actual site doesn’t. The bigger benefit is the point above