diff --git a/content/notes/stylometric-fingerprinting-resistance.md b/content/notes/stylometric-fingerprinting-resistance.md
index 165158e..5643fa4 100644
--- a/content/notes/stylometric-fingerprinting-resistance.md
+++ b/content/notes/stylometric-fingerprinting-resistance.md
@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ Common advice is to use offline machine translation to translate works to and fr
 
 {{<mention-work itemprop="citation" role="doc-credit" itemtype="ScholarlyArticle">}}{{<cited-work name="Adversarial stylometry: Circumventing authorship recognition to preserve privacy and anonymity" extraName="headline" url="https://doi.org/10.1145/2382448.2382450">}}{{</mention-work>}} shows that machine translation alone isn't nearly as strong a method as manual approaches: obfuscation (hiding your writing style) or imitation (mimicking another author). These approaches have excellent success rates, even among amateur writers. The aforementioned Whonix wiki page lists common stylometric fingerprinting vectors for manual approaches to address.
 
-Limiting unusual vocabulary and sentence structure make for a good start. Using a comprehensive and highly-opinionated style-guide should also help. <cite>The Economist</cite> has a good one that was specifically written to make all authors sound the same: {{<mention-work itemtype="Book">}}{{<cited-work name="The Economist Style Guide" url="http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/style_guide_12.pdf">}}, <span itemprop="bookEdition">12th edition</span> (<span itemprop="encodingFormat">application/<wbr />pdf</span>){{</mention-work>}}.
+Limiting unusual vocabulary and sentence structure make for a good start. Using a comprehensive and highly-opinionated style-guide should also help. <cite>The Economist</cite> has a good one that was specifically written to make all authors sound the same: {{<mention-work itemtype="Book">}}{{<cited-work name="The Economist Style Guide" url="https://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/style_guide_12.pdf">}}, <span itemprop="bookEdition">12th edition</span> (<span itemprop="encodingFormat">application/<wbr />pdf</span>){{</mention-work>}}.
 
 For any inexperienced writers: opinionated offline grammar checkers such as [LanguageTool](https://github.com/languagetool-org/languagetool) and [RedPen](https://github.com/redpen-cc/redpen) may supplement a manual approach by normalizing any distinguishing "errors" in your language, but nothing beats a human editor.
 
diff --git a/content/posts/two-types-of-privacy.md b/content/posts/two-types-of-privacy.md
index 656867c..7efefea 100644
--- a/content/posts/two-types-of-privacy.md
+++ b/content/posts/two-types-of-privacy.md
@@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ In other words, TR falls closer to "wants" on the (somewhat contrived) "wants ve
 
 I mentioned content-blocking, which typically happens through browser extensions and/or third-party filter lists. These can add attack surface; be mindful of the trade-off. Even [trusted extensions like uBlock Origin are no exception;](https://portswigger.net/research/ublock-i-exfiltrate-exploiting-ad-blockers-with-css) exercise restraint when adding third-party filter lists.
 
-I covered this topic a bit more in {{<mention-work itemtype="BlogPosting">}}{{<cited-work name="A layered approach to content blocking" url="../../layered-content-blocking/">}}{{</mention-work>}}. Safe yet limited approaches to content filtering should lay a foundation, topped off by risky yet powerful approaches that users selectively enable.
+I covered this topic a bit more in {{<mention-work itemtype="BlogPosting">}}{{<cited-work name="A layered approach to content blocking" url="../../04/layered-content-blocking/">}}{{</mention-work>}}. Safe yet limited approaches to content filtering should lay a foundation, topped off by risky yet powerful approaches that users selectively enable.
 
 Tracking evasion (TE)
 ---------------------