[alecco]

My point is Google engineers go to the trouble of setting up a URL shortener service on one hand, but on the other hand it seems ad the business anti-privacy executives can override anything. This points out it's a dysfunctional company.

[dahart]

You’d rather have the video code and the tracking code baked into the same code just to save a couple of characters? Why? That would result in a longer code than the video code alone, you would save very few characters. It would not be nicer to look at or functionally any different, and it would obscure the fact that it’s being tracked and prevent people from being able to edit the URL to remove the tracking. I appreciate the fact that I can see that the URL has a tracking ID and that I can edit the URL and remove the tracking ID. I do not want a shorter URL if I lose that ability. What you’re complaining about and wishing for would be MUCH worse than what it currently is.

[essentia0]

That's what both Pinterest and Tiktok do with their mobile short links.

[alecco]

I didn't say that.

[dahart]

Then your point eludes me. You complained about the length. If you don’t want it shorter, then what do you want?

To me, the fact that the tracking code is visible and separate from the video code is evidence of the complete opposite of your conclusion - it’s evidence the ad business does not get to override either engineering nor what’s left of privacy control. Ad execs would surely prefer that the tracking code is not visible nor manually removeable.

[alecco]

I didn't complain about length per se. I pointed out Google's contradiction. As my previous comment clarified. Jesus.

[dahart]

It’s not a contradiction, as my previous comments clarified. You’re rationalizing, making assumptions, and jumping to a conclusion.

[inemesitaffia]

The point is whatever group controls the money controls the power.

Also, only the domain is shorter

[alecco]

Actually, it's not just the domain:

https://youtu.be/X

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X