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

91–100 of 254 posts

Re: .io considered harmful

#91

Post by PhasmaFelis »

dijit wrote: post #35
durkie wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Virtue signaling is the expression of a conspicuous, self-righteous moral viewpoint with the intent of communicating good character. It doesn't actually have to be virtuous, it only needs to signal virtue to others. Virtue signalling usually does not genuinely solve anything anyway it's merely supposed to impress upon you that "this person is good", that's the entire goal. Whether it's meaningful or not doesn't enter…

Mind you, plenty of people blithely dismiss any stated belief that they disagree with as "virtue signalling." Basically implying that their opinions are so objectively correct that no one could sincerely disagree, only fake it to appeal to malcontents, who are presumably also faking it.

Re: .io considered harmful

#92

Post by PhasmaFelis »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #53
Eumenes wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

exactly, the 'about' page, is all I needed to see

I looked at the about page because of your comment, and wow you were right. I've rarely seen such a concentrated collection of "I'm a good person who believes good things" self-pats on the back. Really cringe.

Looking at the page, I assume you mean that she's queer and vaccinated? (And not concealing those things)

Re: .io considered harmful

#93

Post by mym1990 »

zogrodea wrote: post #10
dwardu wrote: post #4

Earlier 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?

TLDs can disappear under certain circumstances, so long term there is a small risk of that. Depending on the TLD, it can also be less recognizable or downright fishy to some. .io has become popularized by the tech scene, but without context it is not very descriptive.

Re: .io considered harmful

#94

Post by pseudalopex »

dijit wrote: post #35
durkie wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Virtue signaling is the expression of a conspicuous, self-righteous moral viewpoint with the intent of communicating good character. It doesn't actually have to be virtuous, it only needs to signal virtue to others. Virtue signalling usually does not genuinely solve anything anyway it's merely supposed to impress upon you that "this person is good", that's the entire goal. Whether it's meaningful or not doesn't enter…

Is it inconceivable their stated goal of enabling the Chagossians to profit from .io sales was even part of their motivation?

Re: .io considered harmful

#95

Post by thiht »

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…

I used to work at a registrar and I completely agree with you. This is exactly my take as well (with a small exception for .eu, just don't use it)

For your online identity (ie email address) I'd even go as far as suggesting not using a ccTLD at all, no matter if you check all the boxes. No fancy gTLD either, just use a .com. I don't think any TLD is remotely as reliable as this one (maybe .net because they're both Verisign, but that's it)

Re: .io considered harmful

#96

Post by benatkin »

teddyh wrote: post #39
column wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what about .me ?

Are you a citizen of Montenegro? If you are, feel free to use it! Otherwise, I suggest that you use something else.

"feel free to use it"

I feel free with my .co domain and I'm not a citizen of Colombia TYVM.

Re: .io considered harmful

#97

Post by mym1990 »

durkie wrote: post #18
mym1990 wrote: post #3

Isn’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.

My point is that nobody is thinking about historical conquests when picking a TLD, most people probably don't even know that some TLDs stem from territories, and after some research, we see that the money isn't even going where we the article states its going.

It would have been a stronger case to make outlining the history and then listing a couple ways to help support the islands. Not buying a .io domain does nothing for that region.

Re: .io considered harmful

#98

Post by teddyh »

thiht wrote: post #95
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…

I used to work at a registrar and I completely agree with you. This is exactly my take as well (with a small exception for .eu, just don't use it) For your online identity (ie email address) I'd even go as far as suggesting not using a ccTLD at all, no matter if you check all the boxes. No fancy gTLD either, just use a .com. I don't think any TLD is remotely as reliable as this one (maybe .net because they're both Ve…

I’d say that it depends on your situation and TLD registry. For argument’s sake, if I was a company in, say, India, would I be able to trust that Verisign would keep my .com or .us domain rights against, say, Google? Probably not, so I’d probably prefer a .in domain in that case, since an Indian authority or registrar would be more amenable to arguments and reasoned discourse with me, an Indian company.

Re: .io considered harmful

#99

Post by benatkin »

alexvitkov wrote: post #49
teddyh wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you a citizen of Montenegro? If you are, feel free to use it! Otherwise, I suggest that you use something else.

Hello, I am an official representarive of the Balkan countries. A non-negligable chunk of our GDP is based on random Rust projects using Serbia's .rs and of course .me. If you stop using our TLDs our ecobomies will collapse. Kind regards, The Balkans

Fine by me.

Old article about how big of an export it is: https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/10/me-10-years-and-two-percen...

Re: .io considered harmful

#100

Post by gowld »

regnull wrote: post #48
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…

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.

That's like the Cuba buying Florida from the USA. Floridians wouldn't consider that "legal"

People can't be legally bought and sold.

Post reply on HN