USA and UK performing/supporting ethnic cleansing, nothing new here. Still the story is truly heart breaking to read.
.io considered harmful
11–20 of 254 posts
Re: .io considered harmful
#12Re: .io considered harmful
#13Re: .io considered harmful
#14I wonder what’s going to happen with https://notion.so
> Oof, sorry about this We chose .so when we were starting out (lots of other companies named Notion, and .so was available). Does it help that we own notion.com now? Automatic redirect for now, but we'll be switching to .com as soon as our engineering team has the bandwidth.
Source: https://old.reddit.com/r/Notion/comments/f6x9mk/why_the_so_d... (3 years ago)
Re: .io considered harmful
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article is clearly a virtue signal. If the person developing the solution doesnt want to pay for the .io domain, then so be it. They don't have to get the morality into it.
Why, if not for the person's morals, would they want to avoid the .io domain? What benefit would they have through that action?
Saving money is another good reason. IO domains are inflated due to popularity, at least last time I checked.
Re: .io considered harmful
#16Re: .io considered harmful
#17Apparently the UK government does not get any income from .io sales:
Wikipedia - .io - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.io
> In 2014, Kane claimed that "profits are distributed to the authorities for them to operate services as they see fit" and that "Each of the overseas territories has an account and the funds are deposited there because obviously the territories have expenses that they incur and it’s offsetting that." However the UK government has repeatedly stated that this is untrue: “There is no agreement between the UK Government and ICB regarding the administration of the .io domain” and "the Government receives no revenues from the sales or administration of this domain."
So, you aren't funding the UK government, just a 'British entrepreneur' who bought the rights to multiple TLDs... I'm not sure that's better, but it's different.
Re: .io considered harmful
#18Isn’t funding .uk and .us domains just as bad then, if you’re going by the amount of blood that is on a countries hands(regarding this particular piece of history, or all of it)?
sure? you get to make that decision. ".uk" and ".us" are more straightforward in what governments/histories they're linked to, and the origins ".io" is not as well known, hence the article.
Re: .io considered harmful
#19Isn’t funding .uk and .us domains just as bad then, if you’re going by the amount of blood that is on a countries hands(regarding this particular piece of history, or all of it)?
The article is clearly a virtue signal. If the person developing the solution doesnt want to pay for the .io domain, then so be it. They don't have to get the morality into it.
how is it a "virtue signal"? what are they signalling?
i'm curious where morality fits in to anything in your worldview if telling the (well-documented) history of a forcible displacement of a people is "virtue signalling" and "getting the morality into it".
Re: .io considered harmful
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article is clearly a virtue signal. If the person developing the solution doesnt want to pay for the .io domain, then so be it. They don't have to get the morality into it.
how is it a "virtue signal"? what are they signalling? i'm curious where morality fits in to anything in your worldview if telling the (well-documented) history of a forcible displacement of a people is "virtue signalling" and "getting the morality into it".
a signal of competence, by fundamentally understanding how domains work.