>>205460

>When you want to access the site simply copy & paste it at the URL bar and remove the space. This is done because of how web/http works. If you click the link directly, the destination site can see which site you are coming from, and that is not desirable.

>not desirable

Why, exactly?

Also if somebody hacked the board don't you think they'd have more nefarious things to do than hunt for random links to poison in /cbts/ general?

This seems like bullshit to me? Idk, could be wrong but like I said I've never had a problem from clicking links in years and now, I don't click them anymore because fuck it, too lazy.

Think about opportunity cost here. Either you have virtually unusable bread full of broken links, impediments to the flow of information; or, you have well-buttered bread, in which information flows smoothly, with minuscule risk of referral hijacking.

>>205566

Yep. That is weird. In 3 threads you're the first one to hazard a reply to that question. It seems almost no one who's here this evening knows or cares about this issue.

>>205586

Just think, SJW/MSM will defend THAT to the death. They want to invite THAT into the US - the more the merrier.

And university churning out SJWs by the thousands, like SJW brainwashing factories, mass production.

AND HILLARY WANTED TO MAKE COLLEGE FREE!

>>205612

Is this a BO or baker-related issue, then? Besides I never said the BO can't do what he wants, I never mentioned him. However, why would he want to do it this way, hypothetically? Obviously, copy/paste then delete space, as a workout process to referral hijacking, is inferior to copy/paste (eg, /pol/'s method). There's no other clear advantages to /cbts/'s alternative, either. In short, it doesn't make sense.

>>205612

>or be traced back here.

Who fucking cares???

>>205681

…What?

This: >>205508

>>205682

Tell me about it, I'm curious.

>>205696

Are you suggesting that OpSec message was custom made for /cbts/ by Q group, and they instructed BO to mandate it, for anon's safety? I don't know if I buy that.

If you're not suggesting that then why are you redirecting me back to the very post about which I originally inquired?

>>205765

Your attitude is repulsive. You didn't understand my question, mistakenly presumed you did, filled up the thread with unhelpful replies, and now, you're accusing me of that, while opining that I asked in the first place because you wrongly believe (a) it's none of my business (b) it's unrelated, because of your own failure to recognize the potentially negative impact the current work around method could have on the effectiveness of anons' research in the long-term. Jesus.