I'm not defending Twitter or their policy in any way (disclaimer: I left Twitter the moment Elmo took over. I despise his hypocrisy and his fascist ideas)
But this could be a "legitimate f-up". Normally, most of these unsafe-url protection and detection is automated in something with the scale of Twitter.
Just like URL-shorteners often are (were?) "seemingly randomly" banned, because a portion of the shared urls are pointing at malware/phishing/otherwise banned content, all urls from this shortener get banned. It may be that signal.me is simply picking up on amount of illegitimate links. Signal is clearly growing strong. Therefore signal.me links' are increasingly seen by Twitter. Most legitimate links, but the amount of illegitimate links will then also increase.
This would trigger an automated ban¹.
The real problem then is that even if it was deliberate (conspiracy theory: Mark messaged Elon: Pls help me curb the growth of the biggest competitor of Whatsapp?) twitter can easily hide behind "overzealous automation, sorry".
¹ Especially if this automation isn't maintained properly, finetuned and kept being tweaked by teams of experts - many of which left or were layd off after the aquisition of Twitter.
I think you buried the lede in your footnote here. Even if it is just a mistake, it's a pretty avoidable one by having a human in the loop to review changes to start blocking URLs to such a commonly linked site. If he thinks that it's "efficient" not to retain enough people to be able to notice that URL fragments and hashtags use the same symbol, he shouldn't be allowed anywhere near an "office of government efficiency", much less in charge of it.
Humans aren’t in the loop for automated bans. That has no relationship to staffing size.
This is likely a problem with the link banning algo not treating signal.me as high volume enough to prevent an automated ban.
That same logic most definitely exists at well-staffed companies and the internet is full of stories of people getting screwed by these systems. Google sinking legit companies with no recourse, locking out Gmail users who had decades of their life there, etc.
The URL hash (the part after #) is often not considered by automated systems to be a part of URL that's meaningful, because hash is normally only used for addressing parts of the website that was loaded based on the previous part of the URL. If a particular Signal.me link was flagged for whatever legitimate reason (contained malware or illegal content) it's entirely reasonable that an automated system would strip the hash and block the whole domain (because the path part in this URL is just "/" and nothing else).
It'll be interesting to see whether they address and reverse it. If not, then we can be fairly sure this was intentional.
The thing is that, in a platform based on link sharing, it should be known which domains point to URL shorteners.
Even if you automate their handling, the algorithm should know that, if it bumps into a say signal.me, bit.ly or goo.gl URL, it should first do a GET and then apply the algorithm to whatever is provided in the Location header.
Not doing this for a widely used URL shortener like signal.me is just a show of technical incompetence.
As you point out, "honest mistake" can be used by sophisticated intentional aggressors to get away with their attacks.
For a long time, the advice was "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." but aggressors evolve to fit their surroundings. When the population largely follows this rule, it becomes a competitive advantage to fake incompetence.
Perhaps both malice and incompetence should be treated the same, especially regarding punishment, until proven otherwise. After all, robust systems are designed in such a way that a single mistake can't cause harm. If somebody fails to design a system so that multiple mistakes (how many depends on cost and severity) have to stack up, then he should be held responsible.
This ties in with something that took me far too long to recognize: Trust has two pillars.
One pillar is alignment of values, and therefore intent. The other pillar is competence.
These are the same issues faced by AI development, as well as representative government, or anything regulating a dynamic with competing elements or agents.
Yet our plurality voting system would be insufficient even to keep a car on the road and driving within the speed requirements. If only the founding fathers had recognized the need to have more information included in ballots so that negative campaigning wasn't as effective if not more effective than positive.
If we voted with {+1, +0.5, -0.5, 0, 0, 0...} weights, without duplication of non-zero values, the smartest, most constructive candidates would have a better chance. Each district would have its own blend of 3-4 viable parties, and the nation would be all the healthier for it. (Side note: Yes, this is still one person one vote--you could imagine voting with a single checkbox for a single permutation of all possible assignments of the scores, as an intermediate form.)
Back to your point, though: Yes, incompetence and malice can have the same effect in the short term. The long term is what determines the difference, both in effect and our responses to it.
I will go with "legitimate f-up" too. Elon Musk has been pretty vocal about Signal in the past, mostly positively. If blocking Signal URLs has been intentional, he would have probably have mentioned it somewhere.
Shortened URLs are dubious by default. It is also possible that there really is a lot of spam/scam happening on Signal right now with signal.me URLs as an entry point. I mean, why not? Every messaging platform can be used for that, even more so if end-to-end encrypted as it makes spam detection harder. In fact, one of the first messages I received on Signal was an obvious scam from a user pretending to be Amazon.
Are links to mastodon still banned on twitter? Because that was a thing after Musk took over. So much for being a free speech absolutist.
You're making the mistake of taking a (communal + antagonistic) narcissist at face value. They are known to lie to suit their current goals and when those goals are achieved, they will lie to suit their new goals, whether the lies are congruent with each other or not.
This is a guy who:
- publicly called a rescuer "pedo guy", then falsely claimed it's a common insult from South Africa
- in a private email called him a "child rapist" and made up allegations of a 12 yo bride
- hired a PI to dig up dirt on him (which failed to corroborate any of his allegations)
Western society really needs to destigmatize discussion of mental illness, including diagnosing public personalities based on their behavior. Give them an opportunity to defend themselves, sure, but at some point, they become a danger to others (usually not to themselves) and should be required to seek treatment or be committed to a mental institution.
The reason absolutely matter : a mistake can happen to anyone, and be fixed within a short time, while censorship is deliberate and will probably not be fixed
Same as every social platform, the network effect. The actual functionality really is secondary to the usage and culture of these. Very much affecting it, yes, but still secondary at the same time. Same with multiplayer games, hangout spots or third places, and the list goes on.
There are many circles where xitter is a default platform. For example, many anime-style nsfw artists publish there as a primary outlet, and many companies publish their most instant news there (like a service outage, change in the opening hours, things like that). That and many other such things are plenty to keep people there.
Stopped using X when Elon took over, and then finally deleted my account (which I had had for many years, was an early adopter of Twitter before it was highly popular) when Elon went full MAGA-nazi. No regrets.
Some people are smart, insightful, and for some reason insist on only posting on X. I don't see the harm in continuing to follow them, even if I do wish they'd choose a different site to post on
(I expect a lot of people also have less techie friends and family that only post on a single social media site - I've had accounts all over the place trying to keep track of some old friends)
I guess those smart, insightful people are staying on X because
- their targeting audience are on X
- they are rich and do not really care what the platform owner does
- they will be very happy to join the owner when offered such opportunities
For people who are the target audience of those people, I guess
- they voted for this, and they are happily watching the federal gov falling apart
- they convinced themselves that X is the place to grow / learn from smart and insightful people (I don't think one has to be on it for more than 10 min a day to grow & learn, unless one is a crypto trader)
- they convinced themselves that it is really nothing political about using X
It’s propped up by media companies, who have become addicted to the quick quote that a tweet provides. Any topic distilled down into 140 characters is always going to have multiple ways to interpret it, thus feeding the click bait pipeline with sufficient reactionary data.
It is a monument in the race to the bottom of “digestible/summarized content”.
I use it because it's one of a few platforms that's not censored to hell. Sure, it results in some unpleasant crap sometimes, but generally the feed is good.
its the only social media platform that isn't image and video heavy, can consistently have non-bot and non-fake and non-clickbait material of substance (if you curate who you you follow well), provides awesome filtering options out of the box for stuff like keywords (i literally had to make a browser extension to filter reddit crap out better), and has a lot of interesting people posting entertaining non-image stuff
caveat: i completely stay off anything political, i filter the absolute hell out of anything political, i block people constantly
i don't care that elon owns it because i don't buy into the outrageous hyperbole of him literally being the next hitler. i think elon is a deeply problematic person not especially more so than a million other business leaders and billionaires, his bullshit is just a lot more visible, and he accomplishes a lot of cool shit despite the bullshit.
not interested in debating people wanting to scream about elon and wont respond to comments about him, im just offering my unfiltered opinion about why I use X
> i think elon is a deeply problematic person not especially more so than a million other business leaders and billionaires, his bullshit is just a lot more visible
I don't disagree with you. But the big problem -- and the reason why people like me are so upset -- is that Elon is now in a much more powerful position than any of those other business leaders, a position in which he is directly impacting the lives of Americans whether they use his products or not. That's quite different than Bezos, Zuck, and all the rest. If he had stayed out of politics I wouldn't have much issue (I can choose not to use X, drive a Tesla, etc.)
Are you seriously asking that question? If so, I suggest looking at the nov election results. The votes for Trump were for this (his relationship to Elon and intention of “having him make the government efficient” were well known in advance of the election).
It's not just about Trump though. I jumped ship the second Musk pushed the change to increase the weight of tweets made by a paying account. Also the first thing he did when he took over was cut the entire a11y team. Then he login-walled Twitter and broke the API. Reddit communities went crazy when the Reddit team paywalled their own API.
There's an incredibly long list of reasons to ditch x beyond musk's political activity
quite frankly, your argument is dishonest, whether intentionally or not. I do not trust anyone repeating online, and no one else should. Especially since its repeated verbatim every time it comes up, its clear that this is "the play" and propaganda.
> I suggest looking at the nov election results.
What should we be looking at exactly? How the curiously 100% flipped swing states voted? I agree, theres much to look at there.
> The votes for Trump were for this (his relationship to Elon and intention of “having him make the government efficient” were well known in advance of the election
That is an outright lie.
No one knew Musk would be running amok dismantling government institutions like a rabid dog, while side stepping all government processes. Project 2025 had something like a 6% approval rating. What is being "implemented" right now is Project 2025.
The US is in a constitutional crisis, and the saving money is a farce to permanently disable the US as a functioning body.
You think the US is bankrupting you by stealing your money? Specifically: USAID, FAA, Government Watchdog agencies, and whatever other group that has been dismantled by now? Those are the high priority agencies stealing our hard earned money?
Not the guys who all of a sudden have a 100 billion dollars since 2010?
the people who ensure government is broken and stealing from you are now in charge. they recently requested $4.3 trillion in deficit spending for tax cuts and the dissolution of medicaid.
I saw your comment and saw it getting downvoted or flagged but it is useful to have a discussion so that others similarly inclined can potentially learn something that they obviously don't already understand. I reproduce that comment here in case it somehow disappears.
>i voted for that, i voted for the destruction of the federal government because it's bankrupting us by stealing our money
If you're concerned about the federal government bankrupting "us" by stealing our money then ask yourself why one of the first things that happened was the firing of OIG personnel. The Inspectors General and their OIG employees are the federal employees with the mandate to identify waste, fraud, and abuse in every federal program regardless of size. They have the power to audit any recipient of taxpayer monies and to work with US Attorney federal prosecutors to prosecute those who steal, waste, or otherwise violate plan guidelines in disbursing money. US Attorneys will not even take a case to trial unless agency auditors can document in detail that a crime has occurred and that crime fits within prosecutorial guidelines and a conviction is nearly guaranteed. To take a case that has any weaknesses risks wasting public money prosecuting a case you might not win. The whole point is to make sure you have the evidence that forces the defendant to either make restitution or to spend some time in a federal lock-up.
It's suspicious to me that the first thing they do is fire all the people who not only can watch, but who have the Congressional mandate to seek out waste, fraud, and abuse of federal programs that disburse money to individuals, small businesses, cities and other non-federal entities, non-profits, and corporations.
Though I am not a doctor, I do think that you should seriously work on your mental health. Start by changing your diet to include less kool-aid as the sugar high you're on can cause metabolic changes that lead to seriously bad health outcomes.
My spouse has spent a career in a federal department working to insure that the money Congress allocates to specific programs ends up being spent for purposes that are allowed under the guidelines of those federal programs. If you think the federal government is the one stealing your money you are sadly mistaken.
Federal programs are full of fraud but the fraud occurs at the recipient end, not within the department.
If you or anyone else are so concerned about where your tax money goes then the last agency entity that you would eliminate would be the one charged with insuring that all the monies in all the programs administered by the agency are disbursed lawfully according to plan guidelines which were approved by Congress. These people, as part of their job, have to read and internalize all the nuances, conflicts with existing programs, and contradictions in all the programs that they serve as watchdog over and it is their skills that allow federal prosecutors to take fraud cases to trial and to convict those who have abused federal programs for personal gain.
You voted for someone who has a documented history of fraudulent use of federal money who made it a point in both of his administrations to remove the specific persons and agencies that would guarantee oversight so that they can do anything without worrying about accountability. Internalize that.
Signal.me links are just a way to easily send either a phone number or user name to someone else. No cryptographic identity. No protection of the phone number or user name. So to get around the ban a Signal user could simply send their phone number or user name over Twitter/X.
It seems that the encrypted username form does provide some identity protection in that it can be cancelled, but for as long as it is active it appears that someone can just ask the Signal server what the associated user name is.
The people involved probably should not be using Twitter/X for this sort of thing in the first place. Mastodon comes to mind as an alternative, but really, anything else.
OK, I couldn't find any specific documentation just floating around about group links. It appears that the base64 value is specific to the group and is only exposed through the link. I didn't see any way to munge the "signal.me" domain and fix it again. So for groups Twitter/X seems to have won.
Phone numbers and usernames are sent in the clear in signal.me links. So in this particular case, they can't be hidden. Perhaps it is not a good idea to post such links on a hostile system.
That's interesting, given that as an official government department they're subject to FOIA requests and as such have an obligation to persist their documentation.
Pretty sure it's because literally all the signal.me links are the same when you remove the part after the #.
When you perform an HTTP(S) request you never provide the part after the # in the request URL, it's only interpreted by the web browser itself. It's likely that their antispam thing does the same and ignores the hash altogether.
On a similar note: the Swedish armed forces just came out and recommended that people working for the military should use signal for their calls and messages for things that are not classified in any of the higher classifications.
Readit News
But this could be a "legitimate f-up". Normally, most of these unsafe-url protection and detection is automated in something with the scale of Twitter.
Just like URL-shorteners often are (were?) "seemingly randomly" banned, because a portion of the shared urls are pointing at malware/phishing/otherwise banned content, all urls from this shortener get banned. It may be that signal.me is simply picking up on amount of illegitimate links. Signal is clearly growing strong. Therefore signal.me links' are increasingly seen by Twitter. Most legitimate links, but the amount of illegitimate links will then also increase.
This would trigger an automated ban¹.
The real problem then is that even if it was deliberate (conspiracy theory: Mark messaged Elon: Pls help me curb the growth of the biggest competitor of Whatsapp?) twitter can easily hide behind "overzealous automation, sorry".
¹ Especially if this automation isn't maintained properly, finetuned and kept being tweaked by teams of experts - many of which left or were layd off after the aquisition of Twitter.
This is likely a problem with the link banning algo not treating signal.me as high volume enough to prevent an automated ban.
That same logic most definitely exists at well-staffed companies and the internet is full of stories of people getting screwed by these systems. Google sinking legit companies with no recourse, locking out Gmail users who had decades of their life there, etc.
Dead Comment
https://signal.me/#eu/fdy5h1miMifXa...
The URL hash (the part after #) is often not considered by automated systems to be a part of URL that's meaningful, because hash is normally only used for addressing parts of the website that was loaded based on the previous part of the URL. If a particular Signal.me link was flagged for whatever legitimate reason (contained malware or illegal content) it's entirely reasonable that an automated system would strip the hash and block the whole domain (because the path part in this URL is just "/" and nothing else).
It'll be interesting to see whether they address and reverse it. If not, then we can be fairly sure this was intentional.
This is only true for systems that works perfectly. If the implementation if flawed, the system can do something different from its purpose.
Claiming "The purpose of a system is what it does." is like claiming that software bugs do not exist.
2. Why it isn’t getting banned on other social networks and only on X?
3. Didn’t X previously block Substack and Mastodon URLs?
Even if you automate their handling, the algorithm should know that, if it bumps into a say signal.me, bit.ly or goo.gl URL, it should first do a GET and then apply the algorithm to whatever is provided in the Location header.
Not doing this for a widely used URL shortener like signal.me is just a show of technical incompetence.
Deleted Comment
For a long time, the advice was "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." but aggressors evolve to fit their surroundings. When the population largely follows this rule, it becomes a competitive advantage to fake incompetence.
Perhaps both malice and incompetence should be treated the same, especially regarding punishment, until proven otherwise. After all, robust systems are designed in such a way that a single mistake can't cause harm. If somebody fails to design a system so that multiple mistakes (how many depends on cost and severity) have to stack up, then he should be held responsible.
One pillar is alignment of values, and therefore intent. The other pillar is competence.
These are the same issues faced by AI development, as well as representative government, or anything regulating a dynamic with competing elements or agents.
Yet our plurality voting system would be insufficient even to keep a car on the road and driving within the speed requirements. If only the founding fathers had recognized the need to have more information included in ballots so that negative campaigning wasn't as effective if not more effective than positive.
If we voted with {+1, +0.5, -0.5, 0, 0, 0...} weights, without duplication of non-zero values, the smartest, most constructive candidates would have a better chance. Each district would have its own blend of 3-4 viable parties, and the nation would be all the healthier for it. (Side note: Yes, this is still one person one vote--you could imagine voting with a single checkbox for a single permutation of all possible assignments of the scores, as an intermediate form.)
Back to your point, though: Yes, incompetence and malice can have the same effect in the short term. The long term is what determines the difference, both in effect and our responses to it.
Didn't they wanted to beat each other up in the public?
I would have prefered that concept and not shady deals. (and while it is of course possible, I really doubt it in this case)
Isn't that like ultimate bro code for "I love you man"?
Shortened URLs are dubious by default. It is also possible that there really is a lot of spam/scam happening on Signal right now with signal.me URLs as an entry point. I mean, why not? Every messaging platform can be used for that, even more so if end-to-end encrypted as it makes spam detection harder. In fact, one of the first messages I received on Signal was an obvious scam from a user pretending to be Amazon.
You're making the mistake of taking a (communal + antagonistic) narcissist at face value. They are known to lie to suit their current goals and when those goals are achieved, they will lie to suit their new goals, whether the lies are congruent with each other or not.
This is a guy who:
- publicly called a rescuer "pedo guy", then falsely claimed it's a common insult from South Africa
- in a private email called him a "child rapist" and made up allegations of a 12 yo bride
- hired a PI to dig up dirt on him (which failed to corroborate any of his allegations)
Western society really needs to destigmatize discussion of mental illness, including diagnosing public personalities based on their behavior. Give them an opportunity to defend themselves, sure, but at some point, they become a danger to others (usually not to themselves) and should be required to seek treatment or be committed to a mental institution.
Deleted Comment
There are many circles where xitter is a default platform. For example, many anime-style nsfw artists publish there as a primary outlet, and many companies publish their most instant news there (like a service outage, change in the opening hours, things like that). That and many other such things are plenty to keep people there.
In the end it's a void question though. users will flock to where opinions resonate with theirs.
Some people are smart, insightful, and for some reason insist on only posting on X. I don't see the harm in continuing to follow them, even if I do wish they'd choose a different site to post on
(I expect a lot of people also have less techie friends and family that only post on a single social media site - I've had accounts all over the place trying to keep track of some old friends)
- their targeting audience are on X
- they are rich and do not really care what the platform owner does
- they will be very happy to join the owner when offered such opportunities
For people who are the target audience of those people, I guess
- they voted for this, and they are happily watching the federal gov falling apart
- they convinced themselves that X is the place to grow / learn from smart and insightful people (I don't think one has to be on it for more than 10 min a day to grow & learn, unless one is a crypto trader)
- they convinced themselves that it is really nothing political about using X
It is a monument in the race to the bottom of “digestible/summarized content”.
caveat: i completely stay off anything political, i filter the absolute hell out of anything political, i block people constantly
i don't care that elon owns it because i don't buy into the outrageous hyperbole of him literally being the next hitler. i think elon is a deeply problematic person not especially more so than a million other business leaders and billionaires, his bullshit is just a lot more visible, and he accomplishes a lot of cool shit despite the bullshit.
not interested in debating people wanting to scream about elon and wont respond to comments about him, im just offering my unfiltered opinion about why I use X
This is if you actively stay off politics. Taking just a small step in and it suddenly turns into 4chan /pol/
I don't disagree with you. But the big problem -- and the reason why people like me are so upset -- is that Elon is now in a much more powerful position than any of those other business leaders, a position in which he is directly impacting the lives of Americans whether they use his products or not. That's quite different than Bezos, Zuck, and all the rest. If he had stayed out of politics I wouldn't have much issue (I can choose not to use X, drive a Tesla, etc.)
Are you seriously asking that question? If so, I suggest looking at the nov election results. The votes for Trump were for this (his relationship to Elon and intention of “having him make the government efficient” were well known in advance of the election).
hence the question
There's an incredibly long list of reasons to ditch x beyond musk's political activity
> I suggest looking at the nov election results.
What should we be looking at exactly? How the curiously 100% flipped swing states voted? I agree, theres much to look at there.
> The votes for Trump were for this (his relationship to Elon and intention of “having him make the government efficient” were well known in advance of the election
That is an outright lie.
No one knew Musk would be running amok dismantling government institutions like a rabid dog, while side stepping all government processes. Project 2025 had something like a 6% approval rating. What is being "implemented" right now is Project 2025.
The US is in a constitutional crisis, and the saving money is a farce to permanently disable the US as a functioning body.
Not the guys who all of a sudden have a 100 billion dollars since 2010?
“A protest vote for UKIP is like shitting your hotel bed as a protest against bad service, then realising you now have to sleep in a shitted bed.”
Please explain the logic.
>i voted for that, i voted for the destruction of the federal government because it's bankrupting us by stealing our money
If you're concerned about the federal government bankrupting "us" by stealing our money then ask yourself why one of the first things that happened was the firing of OIG personnel. The Inspectors General and their OIG employees are the federal employees with the mandate to identify waste, fraud, and abuse in every federal program regardless of size. They have the power to audit any recipient of taxpayer monies and to work with US Attorney federal prosecutors to prosecute those who steal, waste, or otherwise violate plan guidelines in disbursing money. US Attorneys will not even take a case to trial unless agency auditors can document in detail that a crime has occurred and that crime fits within prosecutorial guidelines and a conviction is nearly guaranteed. To take a case that has any weaknesses risks wasting public money prosecuting a case you might not win. The whole point is to make sure you have the evidence that forces the defendant to either make restitution or to spend some time in a federal lock-up.
It's suspicious to me that the first thing they do is fire all the people who not only can watch, but who have the Congressional mandate to seek out waste, fraud, and abuse of federal programs that disburse money to individuals, small businesses, cities and other non-federal entities, non-profits, and corporations.
Though I am not a doctor, I do think that you should seriously work on your mental health. Start by changing your diet to include less kool-aid as the sugar high you're on can cause metabolic changes that lead to seriously bad health outcomes.
My spouse has spent a career in a federal department working to insure that the money Congress allocates to specific programs ends up being spent for purposes that are allowed under the guidelines of those federal programs. If you think the federal government is the one stealing your money you are sadly mistaken.
Federal programs are full of fraud but the fraud occurs at the recipient end, not within the department.
If you or anyone else are so concerned about where your tax money goes then the last agency entity that you would eliminate would be the one charged with insuring that all the monies in all the programs administered by the agency are disbursed lawfully according to plan guidelines which were approved by Congress. These people, as part of their job, have to read and internalize all the nuances, conflicts with existing programs, and contradictions in all the programs that they serve as watchdog over and it is their skills that allow federal prosecutors to take fraud cases to trial and to convict those who have abused federal programs for personal gain.
You voted for someone who has a documented history of fraudulent use of federal money who made it a point in both of his administrations to remove the specific persons and agencies that would guarantee oversight so that they can do anything without worrying about accountability. Internalize that.
Deleted Comment
* https://signal.miraheze.org/wiki/Signal.me_URLs
* https://signal.miraheze.org/wiki/Usernames#Username_links
Signal.me links are just a way to easily send either a phone number or user name to someone else. No cryptographic identity. No protection of the phone number or user name. So to get around the ban a Signal user could simply send their phone number or user name over Twitter/X.
It seems that the encrypted username form does provide some identity protection in that it can be cancelled, but for as long as it is active it appears that someone can just ask the Signal server what the associated user name is.
The people involved probably should not be using Twitter/X for this sort of thing in the first place. Mastodon comes to mind as an alternative, but really, anything else.
Usernames don't necessarily link someone with their real identity, and phone numbers can be hidden.
This isn't the weirdest apology I've ever heard for the behavior of Elon Musk and X's censorship policies, but it's definitely in the top 5.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42579873
https://www.businessinsider.com/musk-doge-records-public-inf...
Sometimes, the simplest explanation is the right one: they're fascists and the rules are not applicable to them.
Deleted Comment
When you perform an HTTP(S) request you never provide the part after the # in the request URL, it's only interpreted by the web browser itself. It's likely that their antispam thing does the same and ignores the hash altogether.
————
Example of link (blocked): https://signal.me/#eu/P01wpUmC4nT2BBTwMrPAw7Nxcp81055tKHGbYw...
Without the hash (blocked): https://signal.me/
There is no blocking if you add any letters in the path (e.g. “abc”): https://signal.me/abc#eu/P01wpUmC4nT2BBTwMrPAw7Nxcp81055tKHG...
https://link-in-a-box.vercel.app
If you think someone might benefit from it, please share. Also, spam if you have feedback!
People already started using this thing, so if there's an issue with it, I'd like to respond/apply fixes if needed.
https://cornucopia.se/2025/02/forsvarsmakten-infor-krav-pa-s... (Swedish)