Live data from Hacker News

.io considered harmful

beep.blog

81–90 of 254 posts

Re: .io considered harmful

#86
post #48

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…

Weird. Also: > And so, Britain traded the land illegally. Whoa, strong claim. Probably backed by facts below? Nope. At the same time, Wikipedia: > In November 1965, the UK purchased the entire Chagos Archipelago from the then self-governing colony of Mauritius for £3 million to create the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). So, they bought it for 3 million pounds. Doesn't seem illegal to me.

[flagged]

Re: .io considered harmful

#87
post #57
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. No, it absolutely isn't. Domain names are rented from a TLD registrar, someone who literally just controls a bunch of DNS servers and some automated systems that's approved by and has paid ICANN. They can reject your renewal for any reason and there's nothing you can do ab…

You really don't know what you're talking about. First, you've confused registrars and registries - registrars don't operate DNS servers for TLDs; registries do. This isn't a pedantic point; understanding the distinction is absolutely key for understanding how domain registrations work. Second, registries (for gTLDs) have agreements with ICANN that provide legal protections for domain registrants - including protecti…

> You really don't know what you're talking about.

I used the wrong word and suddenly I don't know what I'm talking about, but somehow I know how that system works.

ICANN defers to the courts and doesn't differentiate between a registrar and a registry in dispute resolution:

https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/help/dndr/udrp-en

https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/name-holder-faqs-2017-...

Re: .io considered harmful

#88

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.

In agree in the abstract. In practice, we are very over-indexed on these deconstruction type issues by selectively reopening old wounds, often along racial lines, which isn't leading anywhere good, defiantly not to mars.

Re: .io considered harmful

#89
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vanity_domain&old... >

About as useful as calling someone vain because they wear clothes.

"Vanity domain" is based on the common (in US English) term for custom license plates, "vanity plates". Neither is meant to indicate an accusation against the person's character, it's just a figure of speech.

Re: .io considered harmful

#90

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…

> Most people don't understand what .io is for

What is it for?

Post reply on HN