You are staking a valid position and I commend the thought.
However back in March 2020 you completely understood that the short link was designed for human consumption before it reached the level of machine consumption.
You understood this so well that you went out of your way to change the code base as to make sure that 5 characters generated did not stress the eyesight of your user community.
Because of your efforts the short link correctly does not contain…
I1l
O0o
ij
Here is a link to the above effort…
Within this thread several forum users have provided examples how they use 5 char short codes.
These examples are how your user community are actually using the codes. Some of us have log books where 5 chars describe what we did today.
Maybe all of us are using short links wrong. You are correct there exists electronic paths to avoid writing down 5 chars or speaking 5 chars but sadly some of your user community still touches paper or heaven forbid talk to each other vs texting. For us, we appreciated the codes both being short and containing characters our eyesight can discern.
I kinda feel you have seen how the codes are being used even if that use not the way you use them
Implement this how you want, I and others are trainable rats.
you might as well simplify the website even further and eliminate the logic on code generation to avoid certain characters, in fact why restrict links to just 5 chars eventually you will run out of name space might as well just generate a 128 bit GUIDs instead and end users will be forced to abandon our paper, our log books and 1-on-1 conversations with others.