News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Never use a URL shortening service – even if you own it. Parent comment

Re:Never use a URL shortening service – even if you own it by wrs on Sunday February 19, 2023 @01:38PM (#34860434)
The other real use case is printed URLs. Also, why is Twitter’s URL shortener exempt from this concern? If I recall right, they got a special exception to have the only single-character .co domain, and if they go into bankruptcy…
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Never use a URL shortening service – even if you own it by rom-antics on Monday February 20, 2023 @09:40AM (#34868496)
> printed URLs

True, but I still think users would trust "uber.com/xmas-sale" over "tinyurl.com/FgL82" or whatever. It's not that much extra typing.

> Also, why is Twitter’s URL shortener exempt from this concern?

Twitter's character limit means that some URLs can't fit in a tweet due to length limits. So some form of shortening is required, but it's still definitely not ideal. Because everything is owned by the same company, they are controlling their own data (without a blockchain), in a roundabout way. I would never use a t.co link outside of Twitter.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Never use a URL shortening service – even if you own it by JohnFen on Monday February 20, 2023 @12:26PM (#34870364)
> True, but I still think users would trust "uber.com/xmas-sale" over "tinyurl.com/FgL82" or whatever. It's not that much extra typing.

I would.

One of the main problems I have with shortened URLs is that they remove transparency. I have no idea where the shortened URL actually goes unless I click on it. That means that I have to blindly trust whoever is giving me the shortened URL.

In practice, that means I won't use shortened URLs unless they come from a person or company that I already trust.

[ Parent | on HN ]