I'm just going to post this once per thread until I either get bored or get a real answer, don't mind me.

>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 not, 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.

>>206338

Okay. That explains it better. But I guess what I meant, fundamentally, is what individual, group, or entity do we believe would do this and why, and what would be the negative consequent?

Are you sure /pol/ isn't trolling you, even if by accident? 8/pol/ takes themselves way too seriously.

>>206339

I'm just asking, calm your tits bitch.

>>206341

I really don't see what utility there is in a particular site knowing what and how much traffic came there from here, or how and why they would be likely to even notice that it did in the first place. As far as I can tell /cbts/ isn't all that popular a page, all things considered.

It seems like the usability of the board is being sacrificed to disguise irrelevant metadata from an imaginary boogeyman.

Prove me wrong or fuck off. And I've never made a single post, nor read a single thread, on Reddit in my life so again, fuck off.

>>206405

Yes, this is true. Not saying /pol/ doesn't have enemies, or that any particular measure 8/pol/ has taken to insulate itself from them isn't appropriate. In general, however, 8/pol/ is militantly no fun allowed. That said if they wanted to disguise their referral info - that's more understandable. I'm just not sure /cbts/ is on their level at this time.

>>206434

Heh. Try this: review all of the replies to my original and subsequent post, and yours. Do you notice a pattern? Why are so many anons so hostile towards us, for questioning this? Why are their remarks heavy with condemnation, light on explanation like mindless drones?

When was this policy implemented and whose suggestion was it, again? The idea originated from /pol/ maybe, but who brought it up?

>>206482

Oh fuck off with your fearmongering, you fucking faggot. Name one single /cbts/ anon who that has happened to. You can't because one such anon doesn't exist.

1. Multiplicative condemnation.

2. Multiplicative scare tactics.

3. Zero reasonable explanation.

1 + 2 + 3 = CIA BOTS

>>206543

Ok, fine. Let's say that's true. Breaking links is hypothetically valid practice. That doesn't change the fact you can't click through a broken link, while you can copy/paste a functional link as if it was broken.

The broken link methodology strips anons of the freedom to choose for themselves whether they want to click or paste a link. Just like the servants of the cult of Satan, so often in the past, restricted American rights "for security," I might add.

You're a bitch for accepting being treated like a child by fellow adults, specifically whoever's responsible for this terrible rule. You're a pussy for not being able, nor wanting, to think for yourself and make your own decisions. And you're a faggot for supporting the enforcement of your personal bitch-pussy ideology, which renders the board disfunctional and infantilizes anons, on everyone else.

Sorry, just calling it like it is. I don't really think those things about you, more like, someone like you hypothetically. This is not meant to insult or disrupt. I only said it to illustrate a point. There are indefensible, logical as well as practical flaws in the broken link system.

I think at this point I've made a clear case for why it should be discontinued, for the above and other reasons in other posts; no one has refuted any of my arguments, nor even so much as attempted to do so, in fact, no one can even explain why they support it; instead there's been nothing but insults and fearmongering. I recommend restoring link functionality and converting the OpSec message in the bread from an instruction, into a suggestion.

BO if you see this, thank you for your consideration. I don't care what you decide, ultimately, I just hope you get to have the opportunity to make that decision informed by this discussion.

>>206771

Disinfo.

I posted this question 3 times, 1 per thread, for 3 threads. I responded with reason and sincerity to some who responded to my question, which few did, while to some others I didn't respond at all. I'd estimate total discussion I engaged in regarding this topic, prior to this thread, is less than 10 posts.

>>206785

4/pol/ is much bigger, much badder, and much older than /cbts/ and reports of 4/pol/-anons getting swatted, doxed, fired, raped, killed, and imprisoned because someone posted a malicious link, or because someone checked the referral logs and found out that they came from 4chan and therefore went after them. What makes /cbts/ so special? I like /cbts/, more than /pol/ right now actually, but… I'm sorry, this just seems unreasonable given /cbts/'s size, image, age, and the cost-benefit ratio.

>>206868

>and therefore went after them are unheard of.

Also, even if they were common - this isn't 4/pol/, there is an active investigation going on here and optionally quick and easy access to off-site information is very important. This is obvious.

>>206901

>wants me to know that

>doesn't care what i think