Something I'm noticing here on a Mastodon instance as a veteran of G+ compared to those who have been trained by the pre-fasci Twitter:
There are several people (who aren't bots) who will share things they find interesting by putting a headline, then a link.
I can usually just say "cool story, bro.", and go on with my life. And if I can do that, I definitely won't follow the link.
So here's the first image: Something I most definitely will never click on.
...
Whereas, if someone actually talks about the main topic of the post? I'll click it.
So here's the second image: Something I clicked.
...
I mean, I care about Microsoft since their bugs kinda matter to most desktops out there, and sensitive information disclosures definitely make my blood boil... but like, water also makes things wet. And if the topic doesn't interest someone enough to say "Holy mother of fuck, that's really damn scary!" when talking about Microsoft, I just figure it's a typical Tuesday and our corporate overlords are still the same old idiots.
But... the last link that I actually clicked, despite a dozen links crossing my local timeline?
Okay, I care about Bruce Schneier. Not personally, but I recognize the name and recognize that he both isn't an idiot, and isn't convinced that he's the end-all, be-all of security.
Ars Technica isn't exactly that great. I mean; not bad. But they're a media company. They obviously have more writers than subject matter experts.
Still, the person who linked to the article did more than just repeat the headline. Yeah, the article says things I already knew (mainly that us software devs are just self-aggrandizing hypocrites who are completely incapable of self reflection)... but it's not marketing copy.