Just got through reading this piece by David Berlind at ZDnet.
Here are my key points of disagreement…
“TinyURL is the next YouTube. In fact. It’s better. It’s a dream come true for the Madison avenue types whose Holy Grail has always been how to serve people with an advertisement at their moment of greatest need.”
No, it’s not. Seriously. Insulting users with the insinuation that they must link to something in order to show intention (and he quotes Doc Searls in this article) by disengaging attention from that intent is simply off the mark.
“I’m not sure whether Doc would agree, but TinyURL is like a stealth intention engine.”
I can’t speak for Doc, but I don’t think he would agree that TinyURL is a stealth intention engine. It’s a way to send links without taking up too much space. It’s not YouTube. It’s not an intention engine. It’s not an attention engine. Simply put, it’s a useful tool, but it’s one that is quickly becoming obselete as the intention architecture of the web as we know it continues to change.
I’ve been using TinyURL for years and I do appreciate its makers, users and features. But, let’s elevate the web culture past the need for shorter links (and linking all-together) rather than elevating a program like this to YouTube status.
2 thoughts on “TinyURL Is NOT the Next YouTube”
I don’t use TinyURL because of it’s purpose. I’ve been online long enough to know not to trust a link I can’t see (especially in the middle of a forum, for instance). It seems like someone out there was trying to use a couple buzz words to get some article attention.
Good point, Dave.
I didn’t even think of the security issues involved, but you’re right.
Maybe that was a paid per post.