As noted by security researcher Will Dormann, some posts on X purport to lead to a legitimate website, but actually redirect somewhere else. In Dormann's example, an advertisement posted by a verified X user claims to lead to forbes.com. When Dormann clicks the link, however, it takes him to a different link to open a Telegram channel that is, "helping individuals earn maximum profit in the crypto market," he said. In short, the "Forbes" link leads to crypto spam

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 142 points 2 years ago (3 children)

You mean twitter, it's called twitter.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 55 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (17 children)

    𝕏itter. In spanish (sorry, I was mistaken) some languages X sounds like sh, so it's Shitter now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    I’m sorry, what? Can you give some examples in Spanish where the letter x makes a sh sound?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    I don’t speak Spanish (helpful eh?) but I remember when I was in Mexico I went to a cool place called Xel-Há, which was pronounced shell-ha. So there’s one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I don't think that's Spanish. Nahuatl, which is an indigenous language spoken in Mexico, does use x- to transcribe the sound commonly written as sh- in English, so that's probably a Nahuatl place-name.

    In the case of Xitter, though, the reference is generally to Mandarin Chinese, which uses x- to transcribe one of the two or three distinct sounds in that language that all sound like sh- to Anglophones.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
  • load more comments (13 replies)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 83 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The best X to stay safe on X is to stop using X. Seriously, how many "final straws" are necessary before we all realize the place isn't worth visiting anymore? The spicy memes no longer justify the many, many flaws and risks.

    .

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    "Anymore"

    As if it hasn't always been a dumpster fire.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 72 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Honestly, ANY platform that obscures links through redirection should be considered unsafe. If you can't verify the target URL before you click the link, then you are asking trouble. Twitter and similar platforms do this so they can track you more effectively. (In the past it also served the purpose of shortening links to SMS-friendly lengths, but that ship sailed like 10 years ago.)

    Not that visibility automatically would make it safe, but it is the bare minimum required as a starting point.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Closer to 15 years ago. Skype and WhatsApp (before the FB nonsense) were viable options to SMS as long as your friends were also using the same app.

    Although, the viability also depended on the price you had to pay for the data. If it’s like 1.5 €/MB, sending snail mail suddenly seems like a very appealing alternative. Some time around 2003-2005 there was still one company that actually charged that much while all the competitors were switching to monthly packages or even unlimited plans. The price range was absolutely wild back then.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago

    That's true. I was referring specifically to Twitter's SMS integration. I forget exactly when they increased the tweet size limit beyond what could be sent via SMS, but it was a long time ago. At first, SMS was a big part of Twitter's success. People used Twitter on flip phones with no browser or apps. It was basically an SMS broadcast service.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 41 points 2 years ago

    Cool but I don’t care what happens to anyone on that platform.

  • source
  • [–] 31 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I mean, clicking links in any kind of comment/forum type place on the internet can be dicey, even if it is exactly what it says it is.

    If you disagree, and the political standstill created by career politicians puts a sour taste in your mouth, visit www.lemonparty.org to find out more about how you can make a difference.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 28 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    It's Not Safe to Click on X

    Fixed

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 27 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I don't even let my browser display embedded tweets anymore (via Privacy Badger). There are an odd amount of "news stories" that are just strings of embedded tweets.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Twitter is such a shithole

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 2 years ago

    Bots clicking on bots to get hacked by bots. I don’t see the issue here.

  • source
  • [–] 23 points 2 years ago (4 children)
    load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 21 points 2 years ago

    Or you could end up in deep Xeet

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    I need a firefox plugin that blocks Twitter. Not tweets from blue checkmarks, the whole damn site.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago

    Lifehacker still exists?

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Damn, a security researcher discovered what was known from late 1990's/early 2000's: a link on a webpage could take you in a place that it is not the one the link say it will be.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago

    I get the knee-jerk jaded cynicism but this is a little more nuanced than that.

    "All they have to do is set up two different URL destinations in their post. In the case outlined above, clicking the forbes.com link actually takes you to joinchannelnow.net. Once on this site, the server checks to see whether the request is coming from a typical browser (that's you). If so, it'll take you to the spam site, which for this situation is a crypto scam Telegram channel. However, if the server detects the request is coming from something else—like a X link-verifying bot—it'll assume the request is not being made by a human; in these cases it returns a legitimate URL. So, even though the first link is to joinchannelnow, X checks it and is taken to forbes.com, and so it places that URL preview on the post. You're experience will be different."

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)
    [–] 8 points 2 years ago

    Sounds like an issue with pretty much all URL shortening/redirection services on any service.

    Even if the link was legit when they posted it and always went to forbes (not that forbes is much more than blogspam these days), it might not be legit when you go to click on it.

    It's all just 3rd party tracking bullshit anyway. The modern internet is horseshit.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago

    An article talking about redirecting links on a site that uses redirect links for sharing its own content. x dot cahm -> twitter dot cahm

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›