[Roller]

Not long ago, there was a (very) not so bright idea of making URLs shorter, like converting www.google.com to http://bit.ly/2V6CFi.
 
 
Now, the thing is that these URL shorteners are very bad for both the user and the Internet itself. Why? Let's see:
 
- First, because it's a slower way to access pages, content, whatever the original link is, due to the link having to be resolved, on top of the already present conversion from IP to HTTP link.
There's the excuse that by having faster and faster Internet worldwide, that things like this don't matter much, but people seem to forget that maximum throughput doesn't equal faster content access times, which do increase with a growing layer of processes to be done, such as the server translation of a short link into the real one.
 
- Second, it's dangerous for the user since reading the link does not provide any info on where the link might actually go. Perhaps the info tells that the link will go to a manufacturer's site, when in fact it goes straight into a malware-ridden site.
Oh, and in the event of people using some services that reverse the process, unshortening links, not all links can go through that process, and the whole fact of having to do such thing goes back to the first point, where it makes for a slower Internet experience.
 
- Third, having another layer of visible (or not) content between the user and the initial desired destination means that people with limited data plans will be in trouble due to added transfers that weren't needed in the first place.
 
 
Here are a few articles on the subject:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40787542/ns/technology_and_science-security/
http://techcrunch.com/2009/04/06/are-url-shorteners-a-necessary-evil-or-just-evil/
http://zathras.de/angelweb/blog-url-shorteners-are-evil.htm
 
Quotes from the articles:
“The worst problem is that shortening services add another layer of indirection to an already creaky system.”
 
"It is not at all obvious if a shortened URL is one I already know. I have to click it to actually find out what it is. The presence of several shortening services means I could visit the same site three times a day, and only realize it once I've been forwarded. Worse, most short URLs are alphanumeric hashes that don't at all indicate what's on the other end. That's how the rickroll was invented, after all."
 
"A malicious shortener could essentially take you anywhere it pleased, and the user would be none the wiser"
 
 
What are your thoughts on the matter?

 

[sml1226]

Text messaging, Twitter, MySpace, etc. These are the reasons for these links. Wanna comment on the link? Too bad, it uses 9/10 of the available characters.

If everything was open to posting mile long links, I don't think this would have caught on. Secondly, on forums, if you don't want the mile long link, just hyperlink a word like this. (a pic of iGrados through google images)

So really, it's just so people can be lazy, and hackers and phishers can get at you more easily. I disapprove as well.

 

[Roller]

Nowadays, the communication pipes are wide enough to justify going beyond those artificial limits that services impose onto users. Also, link management is something that needs to be improved, for mobile users, that is. Overall, it is mostly composed of negative effects on the whole Internet ecossystem.

 

[Currawong]

The added layers and extra data, which only add up to a tiny amount may impact mobile users a tiny amount, but otherwise, we're talking a few more milliseconds. Point 2 is very valid, as these links are often used to disguise malware. However, and this is a big one, how would seeing the normal link reveal that a link is malware in the first place? The answer: It wouldn't.

 

[Roller]

The performance hit affects computer users just as well. Not every server performs the same when resolving either DNS or shortened links, so I'd say it's a bit more than just a tiny amount.
Full links are easier to read and understand, allowing the user to see where it leads to as well as the odds of the destination being a malware hive. Common Internet practice helps the user learn to distinguish between real and fake links, which many times lie in small differences like a change in the link's extension, some typo on the destination's name, etc.

 

[sml1226]

But honestly, a suspicious link to a "news article" from some random person says something like http://www.msn.corn/ehfksldfjua/igfjkwesdlvio/ahgwkjlnvuiohwklve/vsduvihoerjklsugihokl/awruhg.htm

Can you honestly tell me you'd look at that closely enough to see it says .CORN rather than .COM? This isn't a likelihood (who would make an address at .corn?), but other little hidden treasures are everywhere. A little javascript buried deep in the link that will make a popup with a virus infested page show up isn't hard to hide.

Just saying, it's hard to trust anything, so take the time and run it by a site checker first if you're concerned. But then again, wasting time. So to truly be safe on the internet anymore, there's a lot of time wasting.

 

[Roller]

Your point being...?

 

[sml1226]

 It's hard to trust anything, so take the time and run it by a site checker first if you're concerned. But then again, wasting time. So to truly be safe on the internet anymore, there's a lot of time wasting.

I thought that pretty much said it. If you want to complain about the security of a short link, you have to complain about the long ones too. Either way, you're taking a risk or wasting time by checking security. That's it.

 

[Roller]

All links can be dangerous. Shortened links are inherently dangerous. Long ones aren't. As simple as that, no matter how you want to see it.

 

[Uncle Erik]

It is dangerous.

One time, I got linked to this old video by Rick Astley.

 

[Roller]

After all, that's the origin of said masterpiece that will remain on the anals of art, history, and diverse arts

 
Wait, just one time...? I actually saw 2, 2!!!

 

[Currawong]

I recall Amazon doing an experiment where they deliberately slowed performance of their page load times and measured it against how often the customer ended up buying something, finding it had a significant result. This is why Google released their own name servers. The scary thing is that we've become so used to everything being instant that we are affected by a difference of a few milliseconds.

But seriously: Are we being harmed by a tiny extra delay? Hell no. We are being harmed by the extreme impatience we've developed to anything that takes time.

 

[Roller]

Thing is, it's a development made with the theory of simplifying link sharing, but introducing security risks and performance penalties. That's really what I have against it. Things were faster before that shortening nonsense. What's the next thing? Super short links? Input w.g.c, and boom, you have international google site, that has to go to short link, then regular link, and finally IP address? What's that, reverse evolution? It reminds me more and more about the movie Idiocracy.

 

[Syan25]

Just want to say a BIG thank you to Roller - for giving us all the heads up on how to keep secure on the internet!!! Cheers mate!!

 

[Roller]

Glad to help a fellow head-fier 

Security and the risks of the lack of it are something we should all be aware of. Stay safe, and with plenty of tunes to boot