I often see people comment that we shouldn't directly link to certain websites, so that they don't get the clicks, and a few pennies in ad revenue.

they say we should use archive links instead.

i have a different way of looking at links. i agree that we should use archive, but only as a way to document a webpage at a certain point in time, so we can see the changes they made over time.

for example,

WebMD edits their Dravet Syndrome page from "the first seizure is often associated with vaccine administration at six months of age" to "the first sign of Dravet Syndrome is a seizure thats brought on when a baby has a fever"

https://i.redd.it/qfrnb3bxiz711.png

websites use web tracking, so see who is coming to their website, to see where they go within their website

Here is a screen shot of web tracking. Notice how the log at the bottom captures the fact that this user searched for several usernames and keywords before leaving. Boston Marathon Trolls also work out of Waltham, a suburb of Boston

https://i.redd.it/1uqe1rz3sjsy.png

Fieldwork Quantwork has an office in Waltham MA

https://i.redd.it/hxeu0ucmfs741.jpg

So, while you would be leaving your digital footprints on every website you visit, in a way you want them to know you were there, and what you were looking at. (document everything).

The people monitoring web traffic on their websites, can see where their traffic is coming from, and can easily follow traffic back to its origin.

so, for example, if i made a link to http://cnn.com and anyone clicks that link, the people at cnn.com can easily follow those users back to this post, and read what we are saying about their content.

thats why i often leave two links in a post.

1 direct link so we can ping their website with hostile or friendly traffic,

1 archive link so those who don't want to ping the website can still see the content

https://archive.is/cSnSW

https://archive.is/Rq7rB