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

.io considered harmful

beep.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 254 posts

Re: .io considered harmful

#71

Post by thih9 »

KaiserPro wrote: post #40

The article starts with "everything is FACT" then ends with: Every .io domain you buy funds a government committing crimes against humanity. Every .io domain you renew legitimises and reinforces the continued exile of the Chagossians. which is hyperbole at best, and bollocks at worst. .io isn't sold or owned by the british (or US) government Most people don't understand what .io is for, moreover the UK goverment has…

> The article starts with "everything is FACT"

From what I’ve seen, “fact” (especially in all caps) is often used as a hyperbole, similar to “literally” or the skull emoji.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Generation_Z_slang

Re: .io considered harmful

#72

Post by jmbwell »

The Wikipedia article captures relevant facts from the blog post, in a tone consistent with Wikipedia's standards, for what that's worth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.io

I admit I never considered the provenance of .io and its geopolitical history. I also use some .me domains that I now think I should have considered more carefully.

Reading about it now, I take the original article's point that a geo TLD that seems cute or fun or clever in one culture could have a very different connotation in another culture.

It may or may not be an ethics issue, depending on perspective, but that ambiguity might at the very least be an optics issue, since there is a moral question for at least some reasonable observers.

It appears that foreign use of these geo TLDs says something one way or another about a site/service/brand, whether that's support for the country or some sort of colonialism or something else altogether.

Re: .io considered harmful

#74

Post by teddyh »

preommr wrote: post #65
teddyh wrote: post #2

I would go further and say this: Never treat foreign ccTLD’s (two-letter domains) as anything you can just register and use a domain in. You should only ever use a ccTLD of your own country or region you actually have your main presence in. Your domain name is often your most secure key to your entire online identity, and you want that to be on as a secure legal footing as possible. Older discussion here: https://new…

> You should only ever use a ccTLD of your own country or region you actually have your main presence in. Don't do this either. Countries have rules and regulations around who can own certain domains. It's really annoying when there's a million problems to fix and a business restructure potentially affects whether there even has to be a conversation on if it affects the use of a domain name.

Heaven forbid a tech company should be forced to obey applicable laws and regulations. Those strict regulations are part of your brand; if you register, say, a .de domain, a user can be reasonably sure that you’re not some weird fly-by night operation whose real company name is something else entirely. This is an asset for you.

Re: .io considered harmful

#75

Post by KomoD »

NeoTar wrote: post #17

Apparently 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…

> just a 'British entrepreneur' who bought the rights to multiple TLDs

Not anymore, instead an American private equity firm

Re: .io considered harmful

#76

Post by organsnyder »

IceHegel wrote: post #69

This is so washed up as a take. Let’s go to mars instead of pouring energy into blaming the British for everything.

This post is perhaps extreme (I don't know enough about the history to comment), but not only can we both learn from history while looking forward, but we should do so—best to put our most self-aware foot forward as we hope to expand beyond our planet.

Re: .io considered harmful

#78

Post by nly »

KomoD wrote: post #75
NeoTar wrote: post #17

Apparently 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…

> just a 'British entrepreneur' who bought the rights to multiple TLDs Not anymore, instead an American private equity firm

Bloody UK government can't hang on to anything

Re: .io considered harmful

#79

Post by cool_dude85 »

IceHegel wrote: post #69

This is so washed up as a take. Let’s go to mars instead of pouring energy into blaming the British for everything.

No argument, just "old news"? The British did do this. They ethnically cleansed the Chagos islands. Don't like it, argue your point.

Re: .io considered harmful

#80

Post by mrbadguy »

TimTheTinker wrote: post #61
penneallagricia wrote: post #11

USA and UK performing/supporting ethnic cleansing, nothing new here. Still the story is truly heart breaking to read.

It's heartbreaking, but not entirely true . The UK purchased the archipelago for $3M, a detail that was left out of the article.

Just because money was paid to someone doesn’t make it legitimate. Certainly, even if the purchase were legal, then that doesn’t also confer the right to ethnic cleansing, so it’s kind of a moot point. There was a UN resolution in 2019 that holds that the colonisation of the islands by the UK was illegal. https://press.un.org/en/2019/ga12146.doc.htm
Post reply on HN