To Break or Not to Break (the link); That Is the Question (and here is the answer)

[r3volution 3.0]

This is not any great insight, more like a public service announcement to remind people of what they probably already know.

If the content is positive, you do not break the link - even if the hosting site is usually hostile. You want them to know that pro-Rand (or pro-whatever you're promoting) material increases their site traffic, to give them any incentive to post more of the same.

If the content is negative, you always break the link - even if the hosting site is usually friendly. In the inverse of the above, you want to discourage this kind of behavior.

If it's a poll, you break the link only if the hosting site is hostile. Why? Because we don't want them to see traffic coming from a pro-liberty website such as RPF, since this gives them an excuse to claim that we're "flooding" the poll (*cough*Bill O'Reilly*cough*), or to otherwise screw with the results to our disadvantage. But this may come at a cost in terms of the number of our people who will vote in the poll, so we don't break the link when the hosting site is friendly (no risk of poll shenanigans).

/end public service announcement

[HVACTech]

the r3volution continues!

[thechitowncubs]

I'm back and ready to Break the Links.

[milgram]

I want to add that clickbait stories can be posted without giving a site any traffic whatsoever using http://archive.today/

[Danke]

I think you should post both ways for those on mobile devices.