Do people actually appreciate URL shorteners?

[juanejot@beige.party]

@catsalad @hpod16 Your phishy URL asked me to come out & play, but my adblocker wouldn’t let me…

[catsalad@infosec.exchange]

@juanejot @hpod16

Let's get creepy then! https://creepylink.com/

[juanejot@beige.party]

@hpod16 @catsalad Yeah, that one worked, but I’m disappointed not to see anything about the free dinner just for listening to a time-share sales pitch, where it linked me to.

[xyhhx@nso.group]

@hpod16 theyre nice when i have to share a long url to a device that i have to type it out on, but i know where the link goes and only use open source ones

something something im an outlier and shouldn't be counted

[xyhhx@nso.group]

@catsalad @paveljanicek @hpod16 https://support.ic6do.com/Ireqke_invoice lmao

[xyhhx@nso.group]

@catsalad @paveljanicek @hpod16 omg @ivpn 's anti tracker blocked it

[caracabe@zirk.us]

@hpod16 Yes, in some circumstances: if I trust the shortening service and it’s a printed URL (for inside, on a flyer) that I’ll have to type.

[lnl@screaminginsi.de]

@hpod16 if displayed to be retyped, like on a presentation screen or in print, sure. On web, don't.

[dngrs@chaos.social]

@paveljanicek @catsalad @hpod16 inevitably these end up getting used by scammers sadly

[grim_elsewhere@lgbtqia.space]

@hpod16 Same goes for links to documents instead of pages. I'd like to see some sort of clear declaration if what I'm about to click/tap will start downloading a file.

[codemonkey85@mastodon.social]

@catsalad I’m both surprised and not surprised that somebody went and made one of these.

[mort@procial.tchncs.de]

@hpod16@eupolicy.social
I once liked them, when the character count was important in SMS or on Twitter. But now, there's no advantage but several drawbacks.

[lechimp@mastodon.pub.solar]

@hpod16 @LordCaramac i think its good for situations where people might need to type manually. flyer, presentations, …

mostly replaced by QR codes, i guess.

[raphaelmorgan@disabled.social]

@dngrs @paveljanicek @catsalad @hpod16 ...why would the scammer use a "make the link more suspicious" button? If their links look like that, it's because these tools are based off of phishing links lol not because the scammers used the tool

[raphaelmorgan@disabled.social]

@breizh @hpod16 this: I wouldn't mind link shorteners that don't hide where I'm going. If there were more vetted ones, I'd probably be down for those (currently the only ones I trust are corporate ones, which feels icky but also like... People can't really set a youtu.be link to some random scammy shit other than a YouTube video lol)

[theogrin@chaosfem.tw]

@hpod16

If it's a preview link, then I'm fine with it. Otherwise it's definitely a security risk that needs to be handled better.

[breizh@pleroma.breizh.pm]

@raphaelmorgan@disabled.social @hpod16@eupolicy.social I know a french podcast that does it properly too.

The full URL is https://cpu.dascritch.net/post/2015/12/10/Ex0012-Ingénierie-d-Internet and the short one is https://cpu.pm/12 (for the 12th episode).

[kerryb@mastodon.social]

@raymaccarthy @hpod16 To be fair, Twitter originally used to send you all the tweets of people you followed by SMS.

[kerryb@mastodon.social]

@hpod16 They just add another point of failure, so when you return to a saved link years later you have to hope that the shortening service is still up as well as the site hosting the actual resource.

[caracabe@zirk.us]

@hpod16 for instance, not for inside. Sheesh.