Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

331

While browsing through I noticed links to articles on garbage tier [msm] websites that I have no interest on clicking but wanted to read. Posters on other platforms are encouraged to archive links, which; preserves the original content of the link and prevents the original source from getting click revenue. I'd like to see that here. Thoughts?

While browsing through I noticed links to articles on garbage tier [msm] websites that I have no interest on clicking but wanted to read. Posters on other platforms are encouraged to archive links, which; preserves the original content of the link and prevents the original source from getting click revenue. I'd like to see that here. Thoughts?

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (15).
[–] • 3 pts

I generally archive for sites that are left leaning cesspools, but contain an interesting article ... or some sites where they're ad happy and hard to read otherwise. Now bear in mind though, archive doesn't work with videos, so if an article has a decent video that should be seen, using archive isn't the answer.

[–] • 3 pts

Good point about the video links.

[–] • 2 pts

Example, I generally archive livescience.com because it has pop videos, plus ppl have complained ads on it drive them nuts on smartphones ... but if the main theme is a video, I can't, so I just run with video links and slideshows.

[–] [deleted] • 2 pts

Thanks for archiving and your points on videos embedded in articles.