Do people actually appreciate URL shorteners?

[kerryb@mastodon.social]

@hpod16 They just add another point of failure, so when you return to a saved link years later you have to hope that the shortening service is still up as well as the site hosting the actual resource.

[caracabe@zirk.us]

@hpod16 for instance, not for inside. Sheesh.

[kevinrns@mstdn.social]

@hpod16

Mastodon serves URLs as 23 characters.

If a url is 47 characters long its 23 characters, if its 22 characters,its 23 characters, if it's a shortened URL of 13 characters, its always 23 characters on Mastodon.

The only use of URL shortness is to fool clickers about the destination of the click.

#mastodon

[nazokiyoubinbou@urusai.social]

@hpod16 The only purpose or value I can see to them is when one has to manually type something in. But there are usually better ways of handling even that. (For example, QR codes so you don't have to type in the first place.) If I need to pass a complex URL over to my phone or something I usually paste it into a QR code generator and uncover the camera.

(As a side note, there are QR code apps that can show the URL before actually loading it and I do appreciate that.)

A lot of people here already know this, but of course URL shorteners can go bad and even URLs get taken over...

[somebody@tech.lgbt]

@hpod16 There is also the fact that a shortener can be and nearly always is used to track analytics, often with a focus on networks of affiliations. I do not want to be monitored!

[almino@ursal.zone]

@hpod16 @daltux there are some use cases for URL shorteners that really make sense.

For quick memorization: you need to transfer the text between medias (writing an URL on a paper)

For generating QR Codes: the lesser chars a QR Code has, the easier it is to scan (also looks better).

[paulh@metalhead.club]

@hpod16 internet marketing (Google!) loves to use url shorteners as gateways/funnels, to measure traffic, track audience. Its a Trojan horse, you don't know what you're getting into.
So no, not a fan.

[lutindiscret@mastodon.libre-entreprise.com]

@xyhhx @catsalad @paveljanicek @hpod16 the only legit shortener is one that block you anf force you to install an adblocker before you get redirected to the actual pagr. Redirection is immediate if an adblocker is detected

[blauertee@berlin.social]

@hpod16
Only if generating a qr code

[civil_lights@mastodon.social]

@hpod16 Then again, you're asking on the Fediverse. Your sample is already skewed towards IT-savvy weirdos. This might be very different on some sides of Instagram.

[hpod16@eupolicy.social]

@Civil_lights
True, but on Instagram you basically cannot share links. I want to know specifically what the Mastodon audience appreciates

[yawnbox@disobey.net]

@hpod16

I think URL shorteners are (speaking as someone who professionally manages TLS intercept proxies):

1) a security risk - to your point - because they obfuscate the true destination. further, some URL shorteners, even today in 2026, do not use TLS - meaning network adversaries can trivially inject new behavior.

2) a privacy risk - because shorteners are almost always designed to track clicks to companies selling data likely in breach of GDPR. Usually the forwards include multiple domain changes meaning multiple third-parties are extracting tracking data to potentially thousands of data brokers. and again, some URL shorteners, even today in 2026, do not use TLS - meaning even ISPs can see the full URL, meaning more pathways to more data brokers.

3) unnecessary. Since, idk, 2010? social media companies like Twitter auto-shortening any link to a maximum size in a way that massively long links dont count towards max character limits.

4) something that should be "against the law" on the fediverse for the above 3 reasons, and is even worth soemthing blocking accounts for doing.

@Em0nM4stodon

[hpod16@eupolicy.social]

@vladcampos
It’s kind of similar for the organisation I work for. We have our own shortener, that can only shorten links from the Europa.EU domain…