I've always known that hotlinking images isn't great. You're having a lot of faith that the original host isn't going to delete the image or go offline, and adding an asset to your site that you have literally no control over isn't the smartest thing in the world. Especially in the context of graphics sites, where you're expected to be a reliable source and know that people will hotlink to you often.
But aside from the risk of broken images/seeing unwanted content, I never really saw much issue with it? I know it might take up bandwidth, but the amount seems pretty marginal, and is a non-issue (as far as I'm aware) if the original host isn't even paying for their website/image hosting, like with Tumblr blogs.
So I was always a bit confused when I saw people in older websites get surprisingly aggressive when they tell people not to hotlink. Until I stumbled onto
this website when I was poking around the web, and saw their explanation for it.
Netiquette
"Yes, you MUST download the images, then FTP or upload them to your own ISP. No, you cannot just link to my server to display the images at your site - nor in your chat program, your email, or anywhere else.
This holds true everywhere on the Web -- unless the owner of the Home Page has specifically given you permission to direct-link, you absolutely, positively MUST NOT do it. In other words: Do not include anyone else's URL in the BODY BACKGROUND or IMG SRC tags. The same holds true for all other files as well: text files, sound files, etc.
Many people pay their ISP for storage space; some also have to pay for additional hits over the ISP's standard rate. If you direct-link to their ISP, that means they are paying for visitors to their own site -- and are paying for visitors to YOUR site. In addition, when a web browser has to seek out several servers for images, the display time for the Page slows down considerably. If you don't know how to save or set up an image on your Home Page, ask the person whose Page it is on.
. . .
Many web sites frequently change the names of their graphics to thwart such attempts -- your visitors will then see broken images. Other websites will replace the image with a graphic that announces to the world that you are a bandwidth thief. When you are caught, you will almost always be turned into your ISP, and you may find yourself without your Home Page as a result of your abuse. A claim of "I didn't know better," "I only have WebTV and can't download," or "My free ISP doesn't give me enough storage space" is insufficient defense - just don't do it."
(Mind that the website is from 1995 and that text hadn't been updated in over 10 years)
The first thought that I had was how... serious it is? It sounds like those old PSAs about movie piracy. Not that I'm disregarding hotlinking as an issue: the internet was much slower (and probably more expensive) back then, so it's understandable to be a bit defensive over your bandwidth.
Aside from that: hosting images through your ISP??? People did that? The paragraph about being outed as a 'bandwidth thief' and having your website deleted honestly sounds more like a creepypasta than something that could happen. Was this actually a super widespread problem and I've just never heard of it or this just being exaggerated? Has it gotten better now?
Personally I don't think it's too big a problem, so long as it's from a trusted source (ie. someone who won't replace the images with something horrible to spite you) and you don't mind the risk of broken images. But maybe I'm wrong? I'd like to hear your thoughts.