
Uhhh⊠did I link something publicly recently???

Every day.. but youâll get the hang of it.
Yes, however, for now, that only applies to the sources for nicotine-containing products and disposable e-cigs: Megfelelés a jogszabålyoknak - #19 by Donat
We display external links restrictedly, according to trust levels: Change in the handling of external links
Then to
Yes.
Whatever the ĂFSZ writes, we, the logged-in members here, have stopped linking. I think this is mainly self-defense.
Sorry, I was careless
Iâm getting forgetful already ![]()
Itâs okay, I still wonât share confidential information from my knowledge base ![]()
This is everyoneâs individual decision, but itâs important to see that this primarily restricts the free flow of information, which was also their goal.
Many people think that webshops were restricted because of social link sharing, and because of this, they fear that the site will be blocked due to a link.
In reality, people often overestimate the attention and power of the authorities. There is no precedent for a webshop being shut down because it was linked somewhere.
Authorities do not initiate investigations based on links shared on forums or social platforms, but much more simply through their own systems, with domain providers, parcel delivery / logistics / payment service providers, or based on information found in Google. It would not be effective to scour social platforms and forums all day long for targeted purposes, and they do not have the capacity for it. Especially since a second trust level is required to view a link here without any restrictions.
The fear is understandable, but practically unfounded.
However, as soon as it becomes international
it is likely that sharing a link will be much less relevant, so we are considering â unless we find a good solution â completely stopping the possibility of sharing such links. This is just a thought because the country filter might be sufficient to maintain this type of information flow.
I understand, but weâre not protecting the secret (
) sources from the authorities⊠but from stupid users⊠who then share it with everyone willy-nilly, and the shop clearly comes under the radar.
Iâve already written, I think, but Kumulus suffered exactly this fate⊠it was an open secret there that some miserable Hungarian reported it to consumer protection⊠because of some 10 ml crap..
Yes, there is no adequate protection against human stupidity. However, the same thing can happen if the link is sent privately, or if they find the shop in the Google search engine or on Facebook.
Ugh, my nicotine salt is gone, itâll be good to find a new one..
These people donât know Google.. It has become clear here countless times.. Or maybe they have a different Google? I donât know ![]()
I know my opinion is very harsh.. but thatâs how it is. ![]()
![]()
I understand, yes, indeed few use search engines effectively. My post wasnât referring to that, the point would have just been that if a link is shared here, it doesnât pose a greater risk than the other listed or omitted options. Moreover, since we indeed tie link visibility to trust levels and search engine bots donât see them either, access to the links is actually not restricted only for those who have been actively on the site for a long time. ![]()
I donât see the links on foreign sites either, where they order from, unfortunately they only dare to communicate it in code language anymore.
This is not typical on international sites, but not because the information is hidden, but because they donât know which shop is relevant in which country. Additionally, there, the handling of links is less strict, there is less moderation burden, and less risk due to local regulations. In contrast, with us, the system is built/being built in such a way that information can truly flow, and multiple functions already assist this process.
I already see the dark web future ![]()
![[True Vaper] No comment](http://vaperinas3-uploads.fra1.digitaloceanspaces.com/optimized/3X/c/a/ca66db223487b6ccd0ba5b7c9b35a47b14aa6722_2_180x180.webp)