Before - This is a great news site: http://bit.ly/2Mp91y
After - This is a great news site: news.ycombinator.com
A loss for URL shortener services, but a win for users.
Before - This is a great news site: http://bit.ly/2Mp91y
After - This is a great news site: news.ycombinator.com
A loss for URL shortener services, but a win for users.
HEAD /2Mp91y HTTP/1.1
Host: bit.ly
...
Status: HTTP/1.1 301 Moved
Location: http://news.ycombinator.com/
If the goal was minimizing requests, Twitter could've saved the endpoint on its end and passed the data through the API. A new shortener was unnecessary, though it's easy to see why it is desirable for them.Twitter could indeed have done it on their side, but just doing it themselves is more efficient for them and provides a bit of extra user benefit - the fact it's automatic so you get more room for text in your tweets, their malicious link protection, and reliability if you assume Twitter is more reliable than J Random URL Shortener.
The middle man will not be skipped. It will be wrapped. Two redirects instead of one.
Regardless, URL shorteners cannot be described as beneficial for users (except those who want to track clicks on their links). They make it take longer to get to the page. They are an extra point of failure. They are bad for users. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, but it isn't altruistic by any measure.
the source: http://github.com/sharkbrainguy/deshorten an example: http://bit.ly/amxL0Y