Add a rule against shortened links

[Franix]

Hey,

Title basically says it all, add a rule against shortened links (like bit.ly etc)
You never know where a shortened link like this takes you and you could be pressing a bad link without even knowing it. Links on here usually aren't that long and if your link is reallyy long just use the link button and replace it with a hyperlink.

 

[Tofty]

I do see how this is a security concern, and I see the logic behind this suggestion. However, we must be realistic and work out how many bit.ly links (or alternative link minimisers) posted on MC-Market have actually led to malicious software or webpages - my guess, probably not many at all.

I think this would just be another regulation which users, who maybe don't read the rules in full, would be punished for unnecessarily. You must also consider whether moderators should backdate rule enforcement - should all bit.ly links, and alternatives be removed on the site, or should the rule only apply to new ones?

I just see as this being an unnecessary task for staff members, when they could be going through reports, replying to support requests or carrying out their other various duties on-site.

 

[Harry]

To add onto what Tofty's saying here, you can easily use websites such as https://www.expandurl.net/ to check if you're not sure.

I don't see why we would need a specific rule prohibiting this, as some people use them to track how many visits/clicks they get.

 

[Franix]

To add onto what Tofty's saying here, you can easily use websites such as https://www.expandurl.net/ to check if you're not sure.

I don't see why we would need a specific rule prohibiting this, as some people use them to track how many visits/clicks they get.

Exactly what I was expecting from a Staff member to respond with. See, any suggestions related to Staff getting more work to do, in this case enforce a new rule, they instantly come up with other solutions because wow we don't like to work here.

 

[Orochimaru]

Exactly what I was expecting from a Staff member to respond with. See, any suggestions related to Staff getting more work to do, in this case enforce a new rule, they instantly come up with other solutions because wow we don't like to work here.

Yes, 100% *facepalm* or we don't need to add a unneeded rule

 

[casket]

this is my opinion on this subject https://bit.ly/323WPeT

 

[Franix]

this is my opinion on this subject https://bit.ly/323WPeT

Ha ha you are a meme machine

 

[DarkKnights22]

Dude listen: We don't need this rule since there have been very, very few cases of malicious links being hidden behind these shortened link. It's not because it's a staff member and they will have to put work into it, it's because it's simply not needed. If you're so cautious, you can use something like what Harry suggested, but other than that, I don't see a need to implement a rule for this.

 

[wendyOW]

this thread is why i stopped using this forum actively

 

[Harry]

Exactly what I was expecting from a Staff member to respond with. See, any suggestions related to Staff getting more work to do, in this case enforce a new rule, they instantly come up with other solutions because wow we don't like to work here.

Primarily, it's not about workload, but the lack of necessity for such a rule.

For instance, your argument is that they could be malicious, and we're unsure of where they may redirect you to. I've countered with a method of validating exactly where these shortened links go, and if they are malicious, a simple report will do the trick.

Malicious links don't have to be shortened either; you could have a link to an image hosted on a user's site, but this could be just as malicious as a shortened link.

Of course, Tofty and I's opinion doesn't mean this rule couldn't be implemented - I just find it highly unlikely it will be.

 

[Hannes]

You can just add a + at the end of a bitly link to see what it redirects to

 

[MarkElf]

There are ways around it and sites that can show you a preview.

Orochimaru Can't message you so I'm using a random thread to tag you. Update your privacy settings.

 

[Mick]

Primarily, it's not about workload, but the lack of necessity for such a rule.

For instance, your argument is that they could be malicious, and we're unsure of where they may redirect you to. I've countered with a method of validating exactly where these shortened links go, and if they are malicious, a simple report will do the trick.

Malicious links don't have to be shortened either; you could have a link to an image hosted on a user's site, but this could be just as malicious as a shortened link.

Of course, Tofty and I's opinion doesn't mean this rule couldn't be implemented - I just find it highly unlikely it will be.

Denied, thanks for the suggestion