That curse is URL shortening. And yes, it did exist before Twitter, but Twitter both limits how much its users can post and depends on those users sharing content with each other, often in links–and those URLs can take up a lot of space. The growth of URL shortening has brought with it the growth of URL shortening services, which apparently hope to monetize it.

Leaving aside the issue of how monetizing such a thing can be done, URL shortening is bad from a user’s perspective for the simple reason that if someone shares a link with me, I have no clue where it’s going. If someone just posts “OMG this is awesome”, the shortened URL they post it with could just as easily be a rickroll attempt as it could be an evildoer hijacking their account and sending me to malware. And while I may be running Ubuntu, there’s no way of knowing that there isn’t some kind of zero-day exploit already being used on it (I have no illusions about Ubuntu being perfectly secure, after all).

This isn’t just a security problem–it’s also a usability one. What if I’m playing music and I don’t want to see a Youtube video? What if I’m working and only want to click on a link if I know it’ll be something quick? What if it’s a link to an inflammatory Reddit post that’ll just get me angry and ruin my mood?

Clever users may respond that there are browser extensions and Twitter clients that can solve this problem by showing a preview of the destination. Maybe, but if they don’t show you the URL, do you really think it would be hard for a malware writer to put up a fake display of the site at the destination? If they’re willing to meticulously fake the appearance of a Windows security warning or antivirus program, would it really be hard to put up a fake image of a Youtube page and then switch it out with Javascript if an actual browser is detected? Admittedly, this would likely have to target specific previewers to fake them out, but it’s a real possibility, and not one that an informed user can ignore.

In order to avoid subjecting people to this danger, I’ve installed YOURLS (Your Own URL Shortener… clever!) on my hosting to try to avoid putting people through that. I don’t intend to let anyone else use it for URL shortening, just me–so you can be reasonably certain that if you see a short URL beginning with perpetualstudent.net/, it came from me and not someone who hijacked my account. Yes, my domain isn’t especially short, but it’s probably short enough for my purposes. YOURLS is a great project, if only because it shows just how little work it takes to make a URL shortener beyond thinking of a clever short domain name. All it takes is a cleverly-written .htaccess file, a bit of PHP code and a MySQL database. YOURLS even gives you all the same URL tracking features that the likes of bit.ly do.

So please–if you’re going to use a URL shortening service like bit.ly or u.nu, have the decency to explain in context where those links go and what I’ll get if I click on them. The occasional rickroll won’t kill me, but the last thing I want is to feel paranoid when clicking on links my friends share.

Maybe he just doesn’t want to. Maybe he just wants to go back to the good old days when a news establishment couldn’t be challenged by people working in their basements. Or maybe he genuinely does believe he can completely block off the WSJ’s content with a pay wall and have people actually pay for something they’ve always gotten for free and could just as easily continue to get for free from elsewhere.

But for better or worse, the Internet is here to stay. He’d be better off, y’know, innovating. Instead of shouting about pay walls and blocking his sources of traffic and trying to force his competitors to do the same thing to avoid losing his readership over it.

By the way, traditional news companies can innovate. The New York Times is doing an excellent job of this, even releasing public APIs for other developers making mashups from their content! The BBC even released an open source Javascript library for other web developers to benefit from their work!

But if Rupert Murdoch wants to try to wish away the Internet, I’ve no problem with that. I’ll just keep reading the NYTimes, giving them advertising revenue and link traffic. I might even buy a subscription. Maybe even through TimesReader, which runs on all platforms where Adobe AIR does.

Imagine a world in which using email requires every user to pay someone–say, Apple–for the privilege of being able to read what others send you, or send them messages in the first place. Imagine a world in which Apple Mail were the only email client, and without Apple Mail, restrictive licenses and technical obfuscation would prevent you from reading or writing correspondence with others.

If that were how email worked, would it be nearly as ubiquitous as it is today?

Then why are so many people willing to store (or worse, distribute) important data in formats they have to trust a single entity for the privilege of using it?

Mind you: these people aren’t stupid. They’re certainly not malicious. But they’re victims of one of the greatest caveat emptor tricks of the computer age.

Incidentally, if you’ve ever emailed someone a Word document, I’m talking about you.

Now, I’m no free software zealot. I think free software is amazing–being able to understand, modify and improve the code of a piece of software you possess is wonderful and greatly increases its usefulness. But, I understand that there’s a lot of money in software, be it through the web or the desktop or the cloud, and that there are some things that require too much time and effort to be feasible to produce for someone working in their spare time. And I also understand that a developer whose livelihood depends on sales of said software might be reluctant to release it for everyone else to modify.

But, I submit to you now that it’s the ethical responsibility of any developer to write programs that store data in a human-readable, unobfuscated way.

Even if the program’s interface makes its innerworkings perfectly clear. Even if customer service is excellent. Even if  a lifetime’s worth of upgrades are included in the purchase.

It is perfectly fair for a software company to charge for a license to use software that they developed. But data produced by the program does not belong to that company–it belongs to the user, and the user should have every right to use it as they see fit, be it by developing their own software to use it, or even importing it into software made by other developers. And in order to do that, files should be stored in plaintext.

Pre-2007 Word documents (and in fact, any file produced by a Microsoft Office program by default settings) are a perfect example of how not to do this. If you use a plaintext editor like Notepad to view what these documents actually contain, all you’d see is garbage. Nothing human-readable. The only way to decipher it is by feeding it into Word itself, which, as many people forget, is an expensive program. And one that makes no guarantee of being supported in the future. And with no documentation available to understand exactly how it’s stored in the file for posterity.

Other Office suites such as OpenOffice.org and Google Documents can read Word documents, but only by reverse engineering–an error-prone process that leads to imperfect importing algorithms. This is a format frequently distributed among users, often disseminated to many different users for review or perusal, with a tacit assumption that everyone can use it. There’s no guarantee!

Microsoft isn’t quite as bad as it used to be. In response to disapproval from governments, antitrust suits and intellectual desertion, they’re in the process of migrating users to the new Office Open XML format (you know those .docx files that drive everyone crazy? With a bit of effort, they can even be compatible with older versions of Office!), even going so far as to strong-arm the ISO into making it an actual standard format.

And, as we all know, Microsoft has never been all that good at encouraging users to upgrade software in a timely manner.

This behavior is nonetheless a huge improvement over past practices. Microsoft also recently announced a release of documentation on Outlook’s data storage model, which is undoubtedly a stride in the right direction. But the days of obfuscated data storage should be over. We live in a world where users routinely share data between vastly different systems; conforming to open, documented standards can no longer be considered optional. The Web suffers enough from an incompatible browser holding back its innovation; it depends entirely on interoperability across browsers and platforms. Its success makes restricted, proprietary data formats obsolete.

You may read this post as a cheap shot at Microsoft. I may rail against them a lot, but they’re not the only offenders here. Adobe Flash is another example that’s wormed its way into Web ubiquity, for example. (The player may be downloadable for free, but who is Adobe accountable to? And once you’ve made your .swf files, how do you break them down into components without Adobe software?)

So please–don’t send me .doc files. You don’t know I can use it. Use .docx, .odt, .rtf or even .pdf. Just no .docs.