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

Alphabet selling Google Domains assets to Squarespace

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

511–520 of 623 posts

Re: Alphabet selling Google Domains assets to Squarespace

#511

Post by solardev »

b112 wrote: post #421
jay_kyburz wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be clear, I am upgrading from Python 2.7, but while I do it I'm not building in a way that requires any code from Google and will make sure the app is platform agnostic. It doesn't really matter how many years of notice they gave me, I just haven't had time to do it.

Having any sort of code on python 2.7, means you don't give a rat's ass about security. It also immediately means your code should be assumed to have back doors, vulnerabilities, because python 2.7 almost certainly does! This is what happens, when no one is maintaining software. Security is more important that anything, certainly than having time or not to update your code. You're 100% in the wrong here, and Google i…

Companies suffer security breaches all the time and nothing really seems to happen. Who is it important to?

Re: Alphabet selling Google Domains assets to Squarespace

#512

Post by ocdtrekkie »

ipython wrote: post #496
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your basic premise here is that the encryption is good because it provides the privacy to do, essentially, ethical crime. That's all well and good, when indeed, we have governments passing bad laws , but the problem is that it both doesn't actually protect your ethical crime effectively, because Google's only doing it so that they can be the sole arbiter of your data, which they happily distribute to governments en m…

The problem with the logical conclusion of this argument is that it’s networks all the way down. Remember verisign site finder? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Site_Finder That’s the sort of crap you end up with when every network operator asserts their “right” to modify traffic. Don’t get me wrong I do dns filtering on my home network and block public dns over http endpoints, but there is some balance to be had here…

Let's Encrypt is just the carrot (and to be clear, Google is not just a top sponsor, but two of Let's Encrypt's other top sponsors are organizations themselves sponsored by Google). Let's Encrypt is not Google but absolutely is downstream from that money flow.

Meanwhile Google itself is the stick. Google has used it's policy control over Chrome to effectively mandate using Let's Encrypt, by making using certificates without it a nightmare, and making browser features arbitrarily require HTTPS for no reason other than it pushes more people to do it.

I am not wholly against HTTPS, mind you, I think there's reasonable benefit gains for privacy on balance, but we should definitely be clear that Google and it's subsidiaries and sponsored orgs are responsible for the spread, and the reasons for doing so are not goodwill.

DoH, QUIC, and ECH are where it really begins to go "too far", where we're obliterating norms to ensure nobody can tamper with ad delivery. Things like buying gTLDs and putting them in the HSTS preload list, to roll back to why them selling their registrar business is so unusual.

Re: Alphabet selling Google Domains assets to Squarespace

#513

Post by solardev »

hgsgm wrote: post #501
nytesky wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except meet is a passive teleconf service; duo allowed you to make Video CALLS, like FaceTime. Google Voice seems to have been added to Enterprise, so I cross my fingers it will prevail.

Chat can make video calls like Duo/Meet. Meet is for (planned) Meetings. Chat is for text/audio/video chats/calls.

And Zoom is for everyone else who doesn't want to deal with Google's mess

Re: Alphabet selling Google Domains assets to Squarespace

#514

Post by vlakreeh »

w10-1 wrote: post #74

I'm sad to see this, not b/c I like Google, but because domain names are otherwise a manipulative space, and Google was saving us from that. Domain service - name registry - is a weird market because it includes cross-subsidizing businesses and the information has value (and people will pay for anonymity to avoid hassle), so buy decisions aren't just price/performance. Google and Cloudflare can offer it near cost jus…

I'm really sad that the list of trustworthy registrars is so small. I use Cloudflare for most of my domains and then Google for my .dev domains but now I'm not sure what I'm going to do with my .dev domains, probably keep them on square space. I'd love for CF to get more TLDs on their registrar because I'm very confident that registration isn't something they'd ever kill but there's a told of niche TLDs they don't have yet.

Re: Alphabet selling Google Domains assets to Squarespace

#515

Post by hnbad »

rpadovani wrote: post #438
hnbad wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The German "Corona Warn App" (CWA) is pretty good from a privacy POV. It works along the same lines as the Google/Apple ones I think (trading tokens over Bluetooth, then publishing a list of "infected" tokens when you submit a positive test result, risk severity being based on how many tokens you match, i.e. how long you were in the same space). The difference is that it isn't tied to any American corporation. Of cou…

CWA was using the Exposure Notifications from Apple and Google[0]. Exposure Notifications is not an app, but a framework and a protocol, and CWA was an implementation of it, hooking in the features developed by Apple and Google for iOs and Android [0]: https://github.com/corona-warn-app/cwa-documentation/blob/ma...

Ah, I was under the impression Google and Apple had created their own separate apps and these third-party apps merely worked on the same principle. It's interesting that the document you linked indicates the interoperability between different countries' apps was down to an EU-wide standard. I guess this meant the apps of different EU countries were compatible but only with each other.

Re: Alphabet selling Google Domains assets to Squarespace

#517

Post by qodeninja »

sam0x17 wrote: post #166
andersrs wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a conspiracy theory that a lot of domain registration companies like GoDaddy sell the domain name searches to squatters (sometimes themselves). The larger cloud companies don't have so much incentive do this. I always look up domains from the terminal.

Oh I've confirmed this. Back in the NetworkSolutions days I saw multiple examples of their bot parking a domain I had searched for the previous day.

yup, happened to me twice.

Re: Alphabet selling Google Domains assets to Squarespace

#518

Post by qodeninja »

TwoNineFive wrote: post #370
w10-1 wrote: post #74

I'm sad to see this, not b/c I like Google, but because domain names are otherwise a manipulative space, and Google was saving us from that. Domain service - name registry - is a weird market because it includes cross-subsidizing businesses and the information has value (and people will pay for anonymity to avoid hassle), so buy decisions aren't just price/performance. Google and Cloudflare can offer it near cost jus…

I've heard Porkbun has weird Chinese ownership and apparently most of their operations are in China.

sauce?

Re: Alphabet selling Google Domains assets to Squarespace

#519

Post by sneak »

hfkwer wrote: post #461
fomine3 wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exposure Notifications was a great try by Google and Apple. If it weren't a thing, most big government would develop more privacy invasive contact tracing app. It seems that it wasn't worked well, but still a great try.

I trust my government much more than I trust Google and Apple not to invade my privacy.

Google and Apple don't run prisons, and don't employ (that many) dudes with machine guns.

Re: Alphabet selling Google Domains assets to Squarespace

#520

Post by qodeninja »

rekoil wrote: post #481
tomklein wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

iirc, custom DNS at CF refers to using your own subdomains as name servers for CF instead of the regular *.ns.cloudflare.com. Basically a form of whitelabelling. Specifying 3rd party name servers as your domain’s name server was (still is?) not possible with Cloudflare Registrar. (Disclaimer: I work there)

Thank you for this information, I was planning to move my domains.google domains to Cloudflare, but now I think I won't do that. I'll still use Cloudflare, but the inability to use my own NS is a dealbreaker for using Cloudflare as a registrar in my opinion.

exactly. just as I was considering moving to CF this changed my entire mind.
Post reply on HN