Why don't image boards typically let you upload an image by just providing the url...

Why don't image boards typically let you upload an image by just providing the url? The board would then download the image automatically. This would save you the hassle of downloading it and having to browse for it. Overhead couldn't possibly be much different. If the site can down an image from you, it should be able to download it from another site, right?

Other urls found in this thread:

wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/faithwalkers/files/2013/03/bigstock-Test-word-on-white-keyboard-27134336.jpg
twitter.com/AnonBabble

get a skin thing
idk what its called
it adds a bunch of features

That's the old forum way and it's not necessary anymore because server storage is cheap now.

Linking image URLs is problematic because sometimes links go down. How many times have you browsed a forum and you see blank spaces with "image failed to load". We also share videos, pdfs and other types of files.

It's called hotlinking and many image hosting sites don't allow it for free.

Read my fucking post you ADD deficit shitbag. I said


Not hotlink, you asshat, but actually download the image from the source and store it locally.

changed my os when i left 4chan, so i can't test it (doesn't work on my os)
i think it worked on windows like you described it: just enter the url in the upload dialogue and the browser does that automatically

forgot to write the second part.. or it worked at 4chan (a few years back)

Fuck off OP.
If there's one thing that would encourage less original content it would be this.

I definitely want less funnyjunk images on muh boards.

How much of a newfag can you be?


URL used: wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/faithwalkers/files/2013/03/bigstock-Test-word-on-white-keyboard-27134336.jpg

I'm guessing you're IQ and penis are about equal you stupid little fuck.

As soon as Holla Forums goes to download the image without loading the page it's gonna fail, kinda like you.

Gonna try it on my desktop when I am downstairs later. On mobile now and I do think have the traditional file system browser

Exactly. Images are imbedded into the page itself. You can actually see the image codes when you view source

The reason I wouldn't do this as a dev is because it's potentially unreliable. The host may be blocking referrer headers or lack thereof.

Another aspect is permission. If the user has the actual file, it's more explicit permission than side-loading it like this.
Pinterest had copyright issues because it did it this way, and just raided any server the retarded suburban mums linked to.

...

This is what it looks like.

My

Fucking

Sides

What's so funny?

...

because 4chan is a direct copy of 2ch which was started in the 90s. so things are a little dated.

honestly, i've wondered myself for the longest time why imgur emeds where not integrated into 4chan.

I've known about this for years, but only because somebody told me on another imageboard. It's life changing knowledge if you also have no life.

this obviously. ever use google images and when you try to view the image if forces your browser to go to the actual web page and view their ads? it's because a lot of website operators get mad at large sites that hotlink. the guy with the photos pays for the traffic and doesn't get ad revenue.

...

...

The solution is at hand.

...