• gelberhut@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

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

    • Greg Clarke@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months 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 😂

      • jarfil@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months 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
          ·
          11 months 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.

        • 👁️👄👁️@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          I see zero reason why others would be entitled to archive your content, nor hiding the true target from the user. Those are not bad things.

        • Greg Clarke@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months 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
        ·
        11 months 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?

    • HeartyBeast@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

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

  • PenguinCoder@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months 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
      3
      ·
      11 months 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.

    • Luci@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      The fact that specific domains and user agents are effected by this says otherwise. Take a look in the link for people discussing curling the urls and their findings.

    • 14th_cylon@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      But I wouldn’t immediately jump to intentional.

      occam’s razor says you should ;)

        • 14th_cylon@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          Hanlon’s razor says you shouldn’t.

          yeah, but that applies to a problem where you don’t have any additional information. if you do have background information of any kind, you would be wise to take them into account.

          All right, we got a razor fight!

          my razor is ready, bring it on! 😆