URL shorteners like TinyURL and Bitly are blocked from comments due to previous stances of people using these websites so Scratch cannot detect inappropriate websites, if I'm not mistaken.
But you can still use these on the forums to bypass the YouTube video re-directer. So please add a re-directer for URL shortening pages.
Also, please discuss the youtube.de hack in this post by HTML-Fan and not here.

Yes, that should be blacklisted.

-InsanityPlays- wrote:

But I'm pretty sure you can still use these on the forums to bypass the YouTube video re-directer.

You can even bypass the YT redirecter by using a youtube.de link: Some awesome chiptune music.

Bump

No support, just report the link if it's inappropriate. What if you want your description to be neat and you have a long link? You would want to use a URL shortener.

At least in forums it makes no sense.

HTML-Fan wrote:

At least in forums it makes no sense.

Yeah lol
be moist

And also not in comments. And do you mean a project description? Be really moist and check out my game Stay moist v3.2 …

HTML-Fan wrote:

And also not in comments. And do you mean a project description? Be really moist and check out my game Stay moist v3.2 …

Yep, you knew that cause you stayed moist.

It's not that Scratch can't detect that those are inappropriate links (they can't in the first place), but rather it may lead to websites that are more questionable.

I'm fine with this, but I'm not quite sure how automated this process can be. It's generally more difficult to censor inappropriate links on a forum so it's considered easier for users to report the actual links.

What would you want to link in your moist description? If you want to link a forum, then it's only the size of two short URLs. Could be dryer worse, I think.

What would happen to the posts that already use such link shorteners? Also, what if the link is really, really long? Would you rather have to go through a post with a link the length of this thread*?
*NOTE: That was an exaggeration but there are some really long links.

THIS IS NOT ROBLOX, WE DON'T BAN THING BECAUSE THEY SEEM TO BE INAPPROPRIATE
I mean really. No Support. If you see bypassing, just report it and move on
Very few people even use it for evading blockers.

Basic88 wrote:

THIS IS NOT ROBLOX, WE DON'T BAN THING BECAUSE THEY SEEM TO BE INAPPROPRIATE

Why was the eggplant emoji removed? Why is YouTube redirected to a Scratch version? Sure these are very different but it's the same point.

BearSlothCoding wrote:

Why was the eggplant emoji removed? Why is YouTube redirected to a Scratch version? Sure these are very different but it's the same point.

I understand the YouTube thing, but the Eggplant emoji didn't really have to be censored. Not everyone would use it in a offensive way.

See what Roblox turned into, they ban you from saying NUMBERS if you are under 13. Do we want very severe and restricting rules just because things seem inappropriate? No

Basic88 wrote:

BearSlothCoding wrote:

Why was the eggplant emoji removed? Why is YouTube redirected to a Scratch version? Sure these are very different but it's the same point.

I understand the YouTube thing, but the Eggplant emoji didn't really have to be censored. Not everyone would use it in a offensive way.

See what Roblox turned into, they ban you from saying NUMBERS if you are under 13. Do we want very severe and restricting rules just because things seem inappropriate? No

Scratch will never get that ridiculous so that's not a valid point.

BearSlothCoding wrote:

Scratch will never get that ridiculous so that's not a valid point.

Sure it can. It's an online community after all. There was a suggestion to make a mode where Children couldn't comment, love, or favorite projects. With the suggestions going around, Scratch 4.0 may look strange.

Basic88 wrote:

BearSlothCoding wrote:

Why was the eggplant emoji removed? Why is YouTube redirected to a Scratch version? Sure these are very different but it's the same point.

I understand the YouTube thing, but the Eggplant emoji didn't really have to be censored. Not everyone would use it in a offensive way.

See what Roblox turned into, they ban you from saying NUMBERS if you are under 13. Do we want very severe and restricting rules just because things seem inappropriate? No

I suggest you take a good look at Chapter 3 and 4 of the Terms of Use. It outlines very specific activities that may or may not be conducted on Scratch.

It's their website. Even though they clearly make a disclaimer in 4.7 that they cannot be held liable for user generated content, it is a risk to their user-base if inappropriate references and websites are going to be given on a continual basis. It doesn't matter how old someone is - if they're posting content that's specifically not made for children on a children's website, then they have to take action.

Basic88 wrote:

BearSlothCoding wrote:

Scratch will never get that ridiculous so that's not a valid point.

Sure it can. It's an online community after all. There was a suggestion to make a mode where Children couldn't comment, love, or favorite projects. With the suggestions going around, Scratch 4.0 may look strange.

But the Scratch Team would never actually add that. They especially wouldn't restrict children, the people this site is for.

Basic88 wrote:

THIS IS NOT ROBLOX, WE DON'T BAN THING BECAUSE THEY SEEM TO BE INAPPROPRIATE

Then why are they banned on the main site?
In order to report something, you actually need to click on the link. That spells disaster.

I'd like to clarify that we do not allow link shorteners to be used on Scratch, as they can be easily used to hide malicious content. Please use the Report button on any comments, projects, or forum posts that use a link shortener. If you want to share a link to something on the Scratch website, you are welcome to use the full link.