[dead]
.io considered harmful
211–220 of 254 posts
Re: .io considered harmful
#212[dead]
Re: .io considered harmful
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
What's wrong with .eu domains?
You’re unfortunately not guaranteed your country will be a part of EU forever. With Brexit, there was a really long transition period for UK citizens, but in the end they couldn’t keep their .eu domain.
Fortunately .eu is not that popular as a TLD, and Brexit is not a common scenario, but the transition was painful. Honestly we’re all 1 bad election away from $CountryExit, so at least I’m not taking risks with my domains. I don’t want my contact@my-name.eu to become unavailable to me in 10 years.
Re: .io considered harmful
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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
What are you on about, the article itself does not say fact in all caps and clearly fact(s) is not used as a hyperbole or slang in this article
I assumed grandparent was quoting from the article, the quotation marks made me think that. Looks like the grandparent was the one adding hyperbole.
Re: .io considered harmful
#215I 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 would generalize this into avoiding any TLD which controlling entity does not deserve long term trust. Goverments of other countries are one kind, and I would add to that list companies such as google who could at any day put a gTLD into its graveyard. We have already seen some of the new gTLD that shortly after being created was then abandon by their operator (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17624158).
.io for example should be considered harmful because their operator Ethos Capita has a history of incompetence, corruption and mismanage. They forgot to renew some of the nameservers for the TLD, allowing security researchers to take partial control of the TLD! They also had major outages like randomly giving NXDOMAIN for long periods, prompting articles like https://hackernoon.com/stop-using-io-domain-names-for-produc.... Ethos Capita was also the company behind the infamous attempt to buy .org and the associated insider dealing.
Registering a domain name is a long term partnership, and the cost of breaking that partnership is usually much more costly than people realize until the point when forced to do it.
Re: .io considered harmful
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, the thought process is that cents from every .io registration go to a private equity firm. And none of that money goes to the people who historically lived there and were displaced. So... that's a pretty shitty thing to support (as someone registering a domain), when the alternative is simply "Pick a different TLD." Tbh, ICANN/IANA should either (a) dissolve the TLD as-is, as there is no independent country it…
> The current situation and ownership is indefensible. It's very easily defensible. BIOT is internationally recognized as a sovereign territory of the UK. > And none of that money goes to the people who historically lived there and were displaced. I fail to see how this is relevant. It's a thing that has happened a million times in the past and has been rarely rectified. We don't (and never will) live in a perfect wo…
> BIOT is internationally recognized as a sovereign territory of the UK.
It's internationally recognized as territory unlawfully occupied by the UK.[1]
> I fail to see how this is relevant. It's a thing that has happened a million times in the past and has been rarely rectified. We don't (and never will) live in a perfect world.
I fail to see how this is relevant.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Indian_Ocean_Territory...
Re: .io considered harmful
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
However the UN declared it a violation of international law in 1965 and the ICK has in recent years come to the same conclusion, so in this case there is actual evidence to support that it was illegal.
> However the UN declared it a violation of international law in 1965 The harsh reality is that it genuinely doesn't matter what the UN declares. General Assembly resolutions are non-binding and are almost universally ignored. The UN also is not the ultimate authority on international law. The countries subscribing to said international law are.
> The UN also is not the ultimate authority on international law. The countries subscribing to said international law are.
The countries subscribing to said international law voted 116 to 6.
Re: .io considered harmful
#218Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm just happy they are talking about it all! It's good to learn about things outside your main domain, especially with something like world history/geopolitics. Can you give examples of the gibberish? Genuinely fascinated to know what you are referring to. This kind of stuff in particular can be pretty disheartening to learn about in general, and I find misinformation/pathos around it can often come from resistance…
> ok all the downvotes makes me think I am missing something here The thing you’re missing is that, to a certain prominent subset of the tech community which is also prominent here on HN, “politics” should be “kept out of” tech. Also from this point of view, “politics” is anything uncomfortable which doesn’t reinforce status quo power dynamics; reinforcing those however is “not politics”, and should be explicitly not…
Right. Yeah, that's definitely it.
Re: .io considered harmful
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
> However the UN declared it a violation of international law in 1965 The harsh reality is that it genuinely doesn't matter what the UN declares. General Assembly resolutions are non-binding and are almost universally ignored. The UN also is not the ultimate authority on international law. The countries subscribing to said international law are.
> The UN also is not the ultimate authority on international law. The countries subscribing to said international law are. The countries subscribing to said international law voted 116 to 6.
> The countries subscribing to said international law voted 116 to 6.
Unless the 116 countries voting to uphold it are actually willing to do something about it, it's near completely meaningless.
Can we stop pretending that the UN has power over anything?