This is actually funnier then the title leads you to believe.
I'd archive BBC though, fuck those assholes.
It took three days to pump millions of litres of water out of the dam, after Rajesh Vishwas dropped the device while taking a selfie.
By the time it was found, the phone was too water-logged to work.
Mr Vishwas claimed it contained sensitive government data and needed retrieving, but he has been accused of misusing his position.
The food inspector dropped his Samsung phone, worth about $1,200 (100,000 rupees), into Kherkatta Dam, in the central Indian state of Chhattisgarh, on Sunday.
After local divers failed to find it, he paid for a diesel pump to be brought in, Mr Vishwas said in a video statement quoted in Indian media.
He said he had verbal permission from an official to drain "some water into a nearby canal", adding that the official said it "would in fact benefit the farmers who would have more water".
Mr Vishwas has denied misusing his position, and said that the water he drained was from the overflow section of the dam and "not in usable condition".
One of the main reasons why I don´t archive links is because I like the source URL to be visible. Another reason is that I don´t find it such a big deal directly visiting the BBC, CNN, etc.
I want to see the URL before clicking, it helps me decide whether to click or not.
I realise this is not very popular opinion but this is the way I like it, when you post do it your way, I never complained about anybody archiving links. When I post I will do it my way.
I understand, but that has not been my experience with the BBC and other major big news sites, they don't usually pull articles down. Sure there are exceptions, I understand that too, but in my experience I have only seen that very seldom.
I'm not sure why he said "pull down articles". They make subtle changes to the article or headline more than straight pulling them down. Shadow edits, with no "this article has been updated" text. And no they don't usually do it. Most articles aren't that important. We're talking about protection for the exceptions. It's insurance.
not just removals, they also do edits, especially the bigger guys after we caught them doing the removing. The bigger concern these days are the stealth edits.
This is actually funnier then the title leads you to believe.
I'd archive BBC though, fuck those assholes.
His excuses and reasoning are hilarious.
One of the main reasons why I don´t archive links is because I like the source URL to be visible. Another reason is that I don´t find it such a big deal directly visiting the BBC, CNN, etc.
Mumsnet is that way kiddo ------>
It removes an attack surface. A redirect or archive site could be pointing anywhere.
And if it is a well known website seeing the URL you also get an idea of their editorial politics.
I like to know what site I am visiting, simple.
The source URL is clearly visible when you visit the archived site. Not sure what your issue is.
I want to see the URL before clicking, it helps me decide whether to click or not.
I realise this is not very popular opinion but this is the way I like it, when you post do it your way, I never complained about anybody archiving links. When I post I will do it my way.
Fair, I suppose. I guess I'd suggest just including both in the OP somehow. Two birds with one stone, covering both. But that's just me.
we archive it, because of how fast they pull down articles when we link to them if they break their narrative too bad.
I understand, but that has not been my experience with the BBC and other major big news sites, they don't usually pull articles down. Sure there are exceptions, I understand that too, but in my experience I have only seen that very seldom.
I'm not sure why he said "pull down articles". They make subtle changes to the article or headline more than straight pulling them down. Shadow edits, with no "this article has been updated" text. And no they don't usually do it. Most articles aren't that important. We're talking about protection for the exceptions. It's insurance.
not just removals, they also do edits, especially the bigger guys after we caught them doing the removing. The bigger concern these days are the stealth edits.
Don't be a faggot. Archive it anyway.
You're giving them ad revenue and free information about yourself and which site you've come from.
bbc has no ads. its government funded misinformation
BBC is 100% government funded propaganda. They really don’t care if you give them clicks. (it has no advertising)