• gelberhut@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 years ago

      Afaik, originally they solved the problem twitter has created: URLs were counted together with the tweet text - with overall limit of 140.

    • atocci@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      I think Twitter might do it to standardize the number of characters a link takes up in a tweet? 23 characters IIRC

    • HeartyBeast@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      Why is that? They can be useful - especially if you are including links in something like a print publication

      • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        It doesnt matter how short a link is on paper, I am probably not going to take the time to type the whole damn thing on a shitty phone keyboard.

        QR codes aren’t great either, but I would prefer those in a print publication than a shortened URL. Just give me the full URL in a QR code thanks.

    • Greg Clarke@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      URL shorteners are but inherently bad. I find them useful. I self host them on domains I own. So they’re secure, trust worthy, I can track engagement, and I can update them if need be.

      Plus, I’m pretty sure Twitter forces you to use their shortener. My URL http://gho.st was “shortened” to a longer https://t.co/blahblah URL 😂

      • deepthaw@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        I work for a college. We use our internal link shorteners to make sure a given link points at the latest version of a resource and measure engagement by seeing what is the best way to get important information to our students and faculty. (Did people actually click on that announcement in our LMS?)

        They’re terribly useful for us.

      • jarfil@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        I can track engagement, and I can update them if need be

        That’s inherently bad as in:

        • Third party (you) tracking the user
        • Hiding the true target from the user
        • Destroying any attempt at content archival

        They’re not inherently bad “for you”, just for everyone else.

        • Greg Clarke@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          Third party (you) tracking the user

          I’m not tracking users, I’m tracking engagement. I’m not Zuckerberg

          Hiding the true target from the user

          99.99% of website use a reverse proxy, the target is nearly always hidden. I don’t think you understand how the internet works.

          Destroying any attempt at content archival

          Who would archive a shortened URL and not follow the link to its target? It’s not my fault if people don’t know how to archive my content.

          URL shorteners are not inherently bad.

        • Greg Clarke@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 years ago

          This obviously depends on the context. For instance, I’m speaking at a public event and I put a link up on a presentation to my website. The website is running on my nginx server so I could already track every visit. Having a shortened URL helps me gauge the value of my talk. It’s not black and white

      • mom@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        I self host them on domains I own.

        I’ve been trying to get a short domain to do exactly that, do you know any good brokers?

  • PenguinCoder@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Eh I don’t think it’s malicious in nature but can’t prove it either is or isn’t. They might be doing more analysis on some outbound links or users for something or just A/B testing some additional methods for gathering more data. Unsure. But I wouldn’t immediately jump to intentional.

    • Shadow@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      If adding some analytics adds 5s to the load time, then they need to fire their developers.

      There’s no way this is accidental.