I'm going to do a great idea that some of you might like:
Clickable external links!
Scratch needs clickable links, it's annoying to only have clickable links on the site.
I crossed this out just because probably everyone who sees this thread will dismiss it. So I'm going to do it in a more specific way:
How would it be?
Clickable external links would only work if you were a Scratcher, so New Scratchers will not have clickable external links.
If users shared sites that were inappropriate for Scratch (removed by moderator - please keep it polite) they could be blacklisted.
sites like: YouTube, TikTok, Vimeo, Google, Roblox, X, BlueSky, Facebook, etc. would be allowed.
It would be good for people who have accounts on social media and other websites.

I believe it is much safer to keep the system as is, where external links are not clickable; it is apparent there have been issues with external links proving malicious throughout Scratch's history.

Super-Cat-Poderoso21 wrote:

Clickable external links would only work if you were a Scratcher, so New Scratchers will not have clickable external links.

I find this interesting. I would suggest any system have to be able to prevent New Scratchers from posting external links (unless they are not able to do so already?) - as to avoid encouraging/allowing spam - an issue that has previously existed on Scratch in relation to external links. Aside from that, I would also note that not all Scratchers are aware enough of the danger of external links to be trusted with clickable external links - with external content potentially violating external rules, an issue already posed with non-clickable external links.

Several of the sites you mention have had issues and a long-time history of hosting content that is almost certainly against the Community Guidelines and inappropiate for much of the audience of Scratch - especially such social media websites whose terms and conditions often explicitly discourage their usage for the younger demographics Scratch is popular with.

The drawbacks outweigh the positives in ease of use; such ease of use can also create an ease of use for malice for those with malicious intent.

Scratch forbids linking social media sites, why should we facilitate forbidden activities?

Ninja'd

Super-Cat-Poderoso21 wrote:

I'm going to do a great idea that some of you might like:
Clickable external links!
Scratch needs clickable links, it's annoying to only have clickable links on the site.
I crossed this out just because probably everyone who sees this thread will dismiss it. So I'm going to do it in a more specific way:
How would it be?
Clickable external links would only work if you were a Scratcher, so New Scratchers will not have clickable external links.
If users shared sites that were inappropriate for Scratch such as: “Rule34” they could be blacklisted.
sites like: YouTube, TikTok, Vimeo, Google, Roblox, X, BlueSky, Facebook, etc. would be allowed.
It would be good for people who have accounts on social media and other websites.

Add GitHub but remove TT, X, Rblx, and Fcbk

Support.

op456 wrote:

que você mencionou tiveram problemas e um longo histórico de hospedagem de conteúdo que é quase certamente contra as Diretrizes da Comunidade e inapropriado para grande parte do público do Scratch - especialmente sites de mídia social cujos termos e condições geralmente desencorajam explicitamente seu uso para a demografia mais jovem com a qual o Scratch é popular.

As desvantagens superam os pontos positivos na facilidade de uso; essa facilidade de uso também pode criar uma facilidade de uso para malícia para aqueles com intenção maliciosa.

Scratch have 13+ scratchers. And most of this scratchers have TikTok. but (removed by moderator - please keep it polite), Newgrends and Discard is not allowed. and if the site allowed will show a “✅” and not allowed: “❌”

1. Didn't Scratch “ban” sharing anthing with roblox? or is it just usernames

2. There's a chance just a chance that someone with an account on social media websites could be innappropriate

3. New Scratcher status is just to prevent spam not a divisor that someone doesn't have “Premium” features, hence the 120 second rule for New Scratchers while scratchers have the 60 second rule.

4. The mods don't have enough resources to whitelist so many websites.

Sorry no support, (See 2, 3 and 4) I feel like if this feature gets added its way to easy to go on innappropriate social media accounts


Edit: how is there 4 posts when I only just saw the op

Arranhador de Gatos07 wrote:

Scratch forbids linking social media sites, why should we facilitate forbidden activities?

Ninja'd

YouTube and Vimeo is a social media.

Arranhador de Gatos07 wrote:

Scratch forbids linking social media sites, why should we facilitate forbidden activities?

Ninja'd

YouTube and Vimeo is a social media.

alpha_ape_13 wrote:

1. Didn't Scratch “ban” sharing anthing with roblox? or is it just usernames

2. There's a chance just a chance that someone with an account on social media websites could be innappropriate

3. New Scratcher status is just to prevent spam not a divisor that someone doesn't have “Premium” features, hence the 120 second rule for New Scratchers while scratchers have the 60 second rule.

4. The mods don't have enough resources to whitelist so many websites.

Sorry no support, (See 2, 3 and 4) I feel like if this feature gets added its way to easy to go on innappropriate social media accounts


Edit: how is there 4 posts when I only just saw the op

1. It is just usernames

3. this is the type of thing New Scratcher restrictions restrict—we don't want accounts being made for the sole purpose of spamming YT videos

Super-Cat-Poderoso21 wrote:

op456 wrote:

que você mencionou tiveram problemas e um longo histórico de hospedagem de conteúdo que é quase certamente contra as Diretrizes da Comunidade e inapropriado para grande parte do público do Scratch - especialmente sites de mídia social cujos termos e condições geralmente desencorajam explicitamente seu uso para a demografia mais jovem com a qual o Scratch é popular.

As desvantagens superam os pontos positivos na facilidade de uso; essa facilidade de uso também pode criar uma facilidade de uso para malícia para aqueles com intenção maliciosa.

Scratch have 13+ scratchers. And most of this scratchers have TikTok. but snipped not allowed. and if the site allowed will show a “✅” and not allowed: “❌”

I believe this answer contains two seperate issues - as to the age of Scratchers, Scratch's primary audience is highly young, even if there exists a large 13+ demographic. Safeguarding should still prioritize the safety of the youngest on Scratch, even if it means sacrificing the ability of some older Scratchers to access content they deem appropiate to their age range. Much of this, however, falls into a seperate debate than I believe to be in the scope of this original suggestion - perhaps another suggestion is more viable for this idea?

As to your secondary idea, I do believe a whitelist approach may have some benefit, in comparison to the alternative blacklist system. I am glad to have a better understanding of your proposal here - this has really cleared up your initial idea. I would say that this offers limits as to the benefits of your initial proposal, as only a small number of sites is entirely in fitting with Scratch's Community Guidelines, and adding sites to any list would be a burden of work for the Scratch Team in comparison to any benefits regarding ease of use.

Terms of Use wrote:

3.7 You agree not to post links to any content outside of the Scratch website, if to do so would violate any part of the Terms of Use.

I don't support because the terms of use say you can't post links outside of Scratch.

I don't see how making it easier to access external links would be beneficial to Scratch, especially regarding moderation.
Websites like Roblox and Twitter aren't meant to be linked to anyway, so why make them clickable?

Maybe YouTube video links could be clickable, but only if they redirect to https://scratch-mit-edu.ezproxyberklee.flo.org/discuss/youtube/ID instead.

mastergamerx-details wrote:

(#11)

Terms of Use wrote:

3.7 You agree not to post links to any content outside of the Scratch website, if to do so would violate any part of the Terms of Use.

I don't support because the terms of use say you can't post links outside of Scratch.

Wait! Let's read a bit more carefully.

Section 3.7 says not to post links, if to do so would violate any part of the Terms of Use.
I assume this means that external links are technically allowed, as long as the content behind them doesn't violate Scratch's Terms of Use (mainly Section 3.1).
Still, I would avoid linking to 13+ websites.

Voxalice wrote:

Section 3.7 says not to post links, if to do so would violate any part of the Terms of Use.
I assume this means that external links are technically allowed, as long as the content behind them doesn't violate Scratch's Terms of Use (mainly Section 3.1).
Still, I would avoid linking to 13+ websites.

Okay, but couldn't people just copy+paste the url?

mastergamerx-detalhes wrote:

URL?

They sometimes accidentally copy the entire comment and search it on Google. and Scratch Adds have this add

Super-Cat-Poderoso21 wrote:

mastergamerx-detalhes wrote:

URL?

They sometimes accidentally copy the entire comment and search it on Google. and Scratch Adds have this add

What is Scratch Adds?

Super-Cat-Poderoso21 wrote:

mastergamerx-detalhes wrote:

URL?

They sometimes accidentally copy the entire comment and search it on Google. and snipped have this add

This still adds an extra level of difficulty - if it takes such more effort for an user to access a malicious url, they are less likely to. I would also add it is much, much easier to accidentally click a malicious link you would otherwise avoid than to accidentally copy-paste one into your web browser.

As to your second point, I would need clarification as to what you mean by this - but I believe it is an accidental reference to a web browser extension, which I believe that the Scratch Team discourages the encouragement of such web extensions. I have snipped it in this quote for this reason.

No - seems to risky to me. Links are not implemented for safety reasons.