I would have said the opposite: I'd assume the link to be to a blog post, or Wikipedia page, that articulates the idea in a clearer more succint way than the person might be able of.

This is, of course, before people started sending Instagram Reel or YouTube Short links. Or, maybe worse, links to 3-hour-long YouTube podcasts.

▲

aliasxneo an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Eh, but it can become just as low-effort as AI slop. I've participated in a number of conversations here where it appears the person I was interacting with (this was pre-AI) was just googling off some keywords and pasting links with one or two sentences attached. Even in cases where they legitimately read the thing they posted, the static nature of the link leaves no room for actually responding to any nuance I might have added (i.e. the author missed something critical).

After a few years of this I also just stopped clicking thinks and refused to engage in conversations that seemed to be going that direction.

	▲	BeetleB an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Yes - I would think this is obvious to HN commenters. Generally, when someone leaves a comment on HN that is nothing but a link, it gets downvoted.

▲

BeetleB an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> I'd assume the link to be to a blog post, or Wikipedia page, that articulates the idea in a clearer more succint way than the person might be able of.

As with everything, it depends on who is sending it. For some people, yes. For the rest (majority), it's a case of

He: Makes some claim

Me: I question some aspect of it.

... Potential back and forth

He: Oh, just look at this video/article/book that explains and answers all your concerns.

Thing is, in the majority of the cases, it didn't address my concern. I'd write up something in detail, and get back either silence or yet another link. Took way too long for me to realize I shouldn't bother clicking the link to begin with.