Why? I don't really see why this is bad, other than if your company blocks url shorteners/redirects. What are you losing?

▲

JohnFen 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Because I wouldn't want Google to know what links I click on. When I used to use Google, and they added such redirects that included the destination URL as a parameter, I'd edit the link to make it just that URL before resolving it. This new scheme would make that impossible.

▲

brainwad an hour ago | parent | next [-]

They own the JS on the page, they don't need the redirects to know where you clicked...

	▲	googapologist an hour ago \| parent [-]
		You've been awarded one (1) Dunning-Krugerrand. They own the JS but that is not enough. Don't assert so confidently that they can do this without redirects. (See my other comments for a hint on why.)

▲

what 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

They already knew which links you clicked on though…

	▲	googapologist an hour ago \| parent [-]
		You've been awarded one (1) Dunning-Krugerrand. They do not, so don't assert so confidently that they do. (See my other comments for a hint on why.)

▲

nextaccountic 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I use a Firefox extension to rewrite those Google redirects into plain links, to remove Google tracking of which links I click. The extension is broken now

▲

Fabricio20 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Blocking URL shorteners and google-ad links yes! Personally for me it's also the fact that this is effectively an unresolvable URL shortener, store that link somewhere and it will most likely be dead. Can't copy link anymore and paste it on a notepad or chat app to check it out later as there isn't a guarantee it will load at all (ie: the problem with url shorteners).