Were they using 256-bit random identifiers then this wouldn't be a problem. In that case, the IDs would serve as capabilities to the resources.
Anyone know why they would choose to use incremented integers and not 256-bit identifiers? This seems like a gaping hole to me that makes me uncomfortable sharing links in the tool. I would much, much, much rather not have link previews than be open to this sort of simple exploit. Seems like someone could just write a script to pull down a few thousand links, and then search for links from specific sites, private Goo…
Having predictable, incrementing integers as IDs for public resources isn't a problem. The problem is most people perceive Messenger as a private chat, and don't expect their privately-shared links to be catalogued in a publically accessible, trivially crawlable object store.