Chris, I am not worried about that or any of this, but agree that it's
unfortunate to lose the choice. And it feels wrong to be obfuscating
links to my own website...

For apps that display tweets, I understand that the t.co link must be
used and not the display link. But what does it mean, "require you to
check t.co and register the click" ? How do we "check" and
"register" ?

On Jun 9, 7:03 pm, Chris Barr <chrisba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My 2 pence:
>
> The difference with bit.ly is that I choose to use it. If I don't want
> to use it I'm not forced to.
>
> Additionally, what happens if the t.co service goes down? All links
> will be temporarily broken until the service goes back up.
>
> On Jun 9, 4:17 pm, Harshad RJ <harshad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Dewald Pretorius <dpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I don't buy the click tracking privacy argument. Twitter will have no
> > > more insight into clicks than what bit.ly or any other shortening
> > > service has,
>
> > The difference being that the user who clicks the links in Twitter will have
> > most probably logged into Twitter. Thus, Twitter can directly associate a
> > click with a user.
>
> > When clicking on bit.ly shortened URLs it is very very unlikely that the
> > user is logged into bit.ly. That is because only people who shorten URLs
> > need a bit.ly account (which is a very small percentage).
>
> > --
> > Harshad RJhttp://hrj.wikidot.com

Reply via email to