Fix tons of links

1 files changed, 1 insertions, 1 deletions

diff --git a/content/entry/re-phone-numbers-must-die.md b/content/entry/re-phone-numbers-must-die.md
index bea3ba2..9398707 100644
--- a/content/entry/re-phone-numbers-must-die.md
+++ b/content/entry/re-phone-numbers-must-die.md
@@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ Here, Hugo is shifting from criticizing phone numbers to the global circuit-swit
 
 The second part of the criticism complains that the reason the telephone network remains alive is so that the oligopolistic telecoms can continue to greedily extract money from customers. There's no technical reason that the telephone network shouldn't be gone by now. We would all do just fine without it and without E.164 numbers. Some internet-based replacement for E.164 numbers could easily be realized.
 
-While I completely agree with Hugo's technical criticisms, I would point out that while the internet is superior to the telephone network, it also faces the same problem of oligopolistic control enforced by the network effect. Like the telephone network, the internet is largely controlled by only a few entities. The reason for this centralization is because [the network stack is broken and outdated](/2023/02/14/article-the-internet-is-broken/ "[Article] The Internet is Broken"). We've known for decades about ways to improve it and create [a more secure, decentralized internet](https://www.gnunet.org "GNUnet"), but it's hard because, just like with the telephone network, there are vested interests who stand to lose power and money if the technology improves.
+While I completely agree with Hugo's technical criticisms, I would point out that while the internet is superior to the telephone network, it also faces the same problem of oligopolistic control enforced by the network effect. Like the telephone network, the internet is largely controlled by only a few entities. The reason for this centralization is because [the network stack is broken and outdated](/2023/02/14/article-the-internet-is-broken/ "[Article] The Internet is Broken"). We've known for decades about ways to improve it and create [a more secure, decentralized internet](https://www.gnunet.org/en/ "GNUnet"), but it's hard because, just like with the telephone network, there are vested interests who stand to lose power and money if the technology improves.
 
 > "The E.164 namespace is not secure, not only because carriers are prone to randomly reassign disused numbers. Not too many months ago were articles posted on HN about how a targeted attacker managed to obtain control of a organization's staff member's highly used E.164 number, probably just via social engineering. Since many accounts systems entertain the demonstrably false idea that E.164 numbers represent a more secure point of contact than other identifiers, such as an e. mail address, this creates a significant vulnerability, especially where users are forced to offer E.164 numbers unto this end."