Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The .ly domain space to be considered unsafe

benmetcalfe.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 200 posts

Re: The .ly domain space to be considered unsafe

#161

Post by dotBen »

swombat wrote: post #146
pg wrote: post #93

I think what really happened here is that someone at the Libyan domain authority decided they wanted the name and made up a story in order to seize it. I've heard of other cases of .ly names being confiscated, and for this reason we advise YC startups not to depend on them.

Alternative explanation: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1765420 "Violet Blue is an adult site".

"Violet Blue is an adult site".

Well 'Violet Blue' is my girlfriend, she's not a website :P

Do you mean "vb.ly"? It certainly was not an adult site - it was a url shortener. Have you not seen the grabs of the site floating around in media?

Re: The .ly domain space to be considered unsafe

#162

Post by illumin8 »

kloncks wrote: post #117
illumin8 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem, as it is with any religion, is in the way men interpret the scripture. For example, Biblical law, on which all western legal systems are based, is similarly barbaric. The laws of all western societies come from the law of Moses, which is simply the ten commandments. The difference between modern interpretations of the law and old testament interpretations is that in Moses' time, the penalty for breaking…

I agree with most of your points, minus the phrase "most modern Muslim societies haven't progressed to this point". Yes, there's a fair share of the problems, but I can honestly just think of a few (3 or less) that truly practice the old barbaric stuff. Most, even though have other problems, have at least progressed away from that.

Your point is well taken. Perhaps I should say "some modern Muslim societies." I should take care not to exaggerate this.

Re: The .ly domain space to be considered unsafe

#163

Post by alanh »

jonhendry wrote: post #154
kaerast wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and that's the reason given for this domain name being reclaimed. Drinking alcohol and women showing bare arms are both illegal under Sharia law, and the front page showed Violet Blue drinking beer and showing bare arms. It's difficult for many foreigners to know exactly what is and isn't legal under Sharia law, so it's difficult to know if a domain would be ok or not. However nic.ly are now also warning they do…

Sharia law doesn't necessarily enter into it. You can't sell dildos and vibrators in Texas, and it's not because of Sharia law. Hindu activists in India made death threats and stormed theaters because of a film about a lesbian relationship. Sharia law is not the only reason for repressive attitudes toward sex. I mean, really. They're, what, 30-40 years behind the cultural norms of the US, in this case? You don't real…

> You don't really need to pin that on Sharia, when it's far more likely that it's just cultural. (emph. added)

Because cultural reasons are completely separate from religion? Religion is the only reason people like to tell others what they can and can’t do in private, especially in a democracy like Texas, where it shouldn’t be considered Constitutional to outlaw "dildos and vibrators."

Re: The .ly domain space to be considered unsafe

#164

Post by jonhendry »

alanh wrote: post #163
jonhendry wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sharia law doesn't necessarily enter into it. You can't sell dildos and vibrators in Texas, and it's not because of Sharia law. Hindu activists in India made death threats and stormed theaters because of a film about a lesbian relationship. Sharia law is not the only reason for repressive attitudes toward sex. I mean, really. They're, what, 30-40 years behind the cultural norms of the US, in this case? You don't real…

> You don't really need to pin that on Sharia, when it's far more likely that it's just cultural. (emph. added) Because cultural reasons are completely separate from religion? Religion is the only reason people like to tell others what they can and can’t do in private, especially in a democracy like Texas, where it shouldn’t be considered Constitutional to outlaw "dildos and vibrators."

A agree, but there's a tendency among some these days to tout the boogeyman of sharia law. And there's an implication that there's something alien about Libya, that being restrictive of sexual matter is somehow unique to sharia law, that without sharia law Libya would be just like the US, and that Christians wouldn't do anything similar.

Which is just nonsense. Conservatives are conservative. Libya did this thing, and John Ashcroft covered up a statue's tit.

Bringing sharia into it is just buying into the latest thing pants-wetting wingnuts are using to scare themselves.

Re: The .ly domain space to be considered unsafe

#165

Post by alanh »

jonhendry wrote: post #164
alanh wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You don't really need to pin that on Sharia, when it's far more likely that it's just cultural. (emph. added) Because cultural reasons are completely separate from religion? Religion is the only reason people like to tell others what they can and can’t do in private, especially in a democracy like Texas, where it shouldn’t be considered Constitutional to outlaw "dildos and vibrators."

A agree, but there's a tendency among some these days to tout the boogeyman of sharia law. And there's an implication that there's something alien about Libya, that being restrictive of sexual matter is somehow unique to sharia law, that without sharia law Libya would be just like the US, and that Christians wouldn't do anything similar. Which is just nonsense. Conservatives are conservative. Libya did this thing, an…

Maybe I’m foolish, but I think that denying the involvement of sharia law buys us nothing, but recognizing similarities with other conservative censorship tendencies (e.g. in Christendom) — as you have — can be a enlightening.

Re: The .ly domain space to be considered unsafe

#166

Post by ars »

illumin8 wrote: post #113
kloncks wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will only comment on your use of the term Sharia law. The term's widely misunderstood, especially after the events in NYC this summer. Just so that you know, Sharia "law" is just six principles: 1. The right to the protection of life. 2. The right to the protection of family. 3. The right to the protection of education. 4. The right to the protection of religion. 5. The right to the protection of property (access t…

The problem, as it is with any religion, is in the way men interpret the scripture. For example, Biblical law, on which all western legal systems are based, is similarly barbaric. The laws of all western societies come from the law of Moses, which is simply the ten commandments. The difference between modern interpretations of the law and old testament interpretations is that in Moses' time, the penalty for breaking…

"Coveted your neighbors posessions? Death."

That's not true. You really shouldn't just make things up to support an argument.

Re: The .ly domain space to be considered unsafe

#167

Post by ars »

andreross wrote: post #132
techsupporter wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to let facts get in the way of a good rant: "I would stay away from any Muslim country domain, just in case, including .io" Are you aware that .io is assigned to the British Indian Ocean Territory, which is "an overseas territory of the United Kingtom?" The registry itself is maintained by two UK-based companies, Internet Computer Bureau PLC and Cable and Wireless.

oooops, I spent my life being convinced that .io is Indonesia...thanks for clarification, will put that one back on the white list.

Indonesia is .id

Re: The .ly domain space to be considered unsafe

#168

Post by devmonk »

'You may also not know that since June 2010 .ly domains less than 4 characters long may no longer be registered by anyone who isn’t in Libya which suggests there is tension around foreign owned, high-value, short .ly domains.'

What about bit.ly?

Registrant: bit.ly Jessica McVea 416 West 13th Street New York NY United States Zip/Postal code: 10014 Phone: 6468398575

Domain Name: BIT.LY

Created: 2008-05-18 14:50:12 Updated: 2010-03-09 18:25:33 Expired: 2011-05-18 14:50:12

Domain servers in listed order: ns4.p26.dynect.net ns3.p26.dynect.net ns2.p26.dynect.net ns1.p26.dynect.net

Domain Status: ACTIVE

Re: The .ly domain space to be considered unsafe

#169

Post by quant18 »

kaerast wrote: post #153
swombat wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alternative explanation: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1765420 "Violet Blue is an adult site".

Yes, and that's the reason given for this domain name being reclaimed. Drinking alcohol and women showing bare arms are both illegal under Sharia law, and the front page showed Violet Blue drinking beer and showing bare arms. It's difficult for many foreigners to know exactly what is and isn't legal under Sharia law, so it's difficult to know if a domain would be ok or not. However nic.ly are now also warning they do…

More relevantly than Sharia, here's the actual text of Libya's anti-pornography/prostitution law (in Arabic), Law No. 56 of 1970 "On the Protection of Public Morals": http://www.aladel.gov.ly/main/modules/sections/item.php?item...

Nothing in there about the Intertubes, of course, and it's quite vague about exactly what constitutes pornography, but basically, you need a license from the Ministry of the Interior or the Ministry of Local Government, and if you violate it they can throw you in jail for three to six years and fine you.

Re: The .ly domain space to be considered unsafe

#170

Post by greendestiny »

oasisbob wrote: post #143
citricsquid wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does this not apply to all ccTLDs though? My understanding was that the majority of ccTLDs are controlled in a way that they are able to easily "reclaim" any domain they want at any time without breaking any "rules"...

I took a quick look at the ToS for my .ch domain (Switzerland), and it seems sane and protective. For a .ch, you're at the mercy of the Swiss court system. Sounds OK to me.

Yeah I'm not sure how keen bit.ly would be to transfer over to that TLD.
Post reply on HN