Some re-hashing of old advice:
URL Shorteners.
Don't use them, don't click on shortened links.
Yeah, thy can get you under that 500 character limit... but at what cost?
They can be used malevolently: a writeup espousing something great, but a link to a nefarious site ready to install a bitcoin miner on your system.
And don't use them, because we don't know that they aren't malicious, and won't click on them.
@0x56 Thanks for the info. I had no idea. Goodbye, Bitly!
@0x56 This is great advice, 56. I got a DM last night that Twitter had flagged (it was just a malformed URL in the end), but I had to open it in radioactive material mode to confirm.
Open URLs for the win! 🙏✌️
@0x56 How do we get around the the question mark problem? URLs seems to truncate at this point.
@Helical_Code - you can add "/nosanitize" to the post to allow querystring parameters.
That was a change that J made to help limit tracking information on the site.
@0x56 Thanks so much! I will try this out.
@0x56 Aren't there URL shorteners that give you an interstitial page, telling you exactly where you're going to end up and making you explicitly choose to continue before being redirected?
I seem to recall running into one that does that very thing.
One like that would be safe to use, because you always know where you'll end up before you get there.
With most link shorteners, yeah, I agree with you. Would be nice to have a list of "safe" vs "unsafe" link shorteners to refer to.
^^ that being said, there are security experts that take this too far.
URL shorteners and QR codes have a fairly valid place in the world.
A "contactless menu" at a restaurant.
An ad on TV.
A flyer from your kid's school.
They've all probably been vetted.
But a link from an internet stranger? A random sticker at a bus stop?
No.