f.org’s terms of service are worth a read. https://f.org/?page=rv
Identical to https://g.org/?page=rv Coincidence ?
not coincidence, one is "in good we trust", the other one is "in code we trust"
X.com is Twitter, but what are [a-z].com?
51–60 of 201 posts
Re: X.com is Twitter, but what are [a-z].com?
#52Interesting. I was not aware that so many TLDs allow single letter domain names. Since so many single letter domain names are for sale, it really seems to be hard to built a brand with a single letter. I personally think that the most important domain names are not the short ones. The most important domain names are the ones with a very big brand. Looking at "google.com" gives me a much stronger signal than looking at "z.com". So the brand really matters.
Re: X.com is Twitter, but what are [a-z].com?
#53I don’t like the letter “x” being used as a company name, I find it impractical and confusing. I’d like to call it something different, and since many people say “x/twitter”, I guess others have similar thoughts. I’m not unhappy that there are few other single letter domains, especially if they were to be claimed by corporations.
I think we really should adopt the name "X". Because Musk took Twitter and turned it into something else, which is not the old Twitter anymore. So giving it a different name is fitting. That said, I don't necessarily like the name "X".
Re: X.com is Twitter, but what are [a-z].com?
#54I own 2 of the 2-character ccTLDs, it was a thing to boast around 10 years ago. Today no one cares, all they know are apps and google.
Re: X.com is Twitter, but what are [a-z].com?
#55One letter domains has the same issue as many of the gTLDs, they aren't particularly useful in terms of brand recognition. X.com is pretty stupid as well, you can't meaningfully use it as a brand. Take bob.builders, it's a perfectly valid domain, but if you see it on the back of a van, even if it's www.bob.builders, it's not recognizably as a website. www.b.com has the exact same problem, even x.com / www.x.com is ju…
No, I disagree with the idea that one letter domains look wrong. Especially with the many new TLDs, more often than not short URL services use single character domains. Take g.co for example—google uses that in ads everywhere. It’s modern equivalent of calling a short code phone number unrecognizable. But yet most people still instinctively know how to text them for information. However for really esoteric TLDs, I ca…
When I see a t.co (x.co now?) link I have literally no idea where it's going to take me at all and I am far, far less likely to click one of them knowing that it's a url shortener. This is such a common thing that there are browser extensions/slack(discord/teams/etc) options to unfurl urls.
Re: X.com is Twitter, but what are [a-z].com?
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can just call it Twitter, in the same way that everyone just says Facebook rather than Meta and Google rather than Alphabet.
I'm just disappointed that people go along with takeovers of useful words: x, meta, alphabet. If one was renamed "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa" would people still go along with it? What's the limit?
We don’t need renames for takeovers of useful words, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexa_(name)#Modern_popularity
> Popularity continued to climb and Alexa was ranked in the top 100 in the mid-1990s. According to the Social Security Administration, its highest popularity, 39th, was achieved in 2006. The name's popularity decreased rapidly after Amazon picked it as the wake word of its voice service Amazon Alexa, which was released worldwide in 2016.
More at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/interactive/2021/p...
Re: X.com is Twitter, but what are [a-z].com?
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
People just google “bob builder” anyway. Domain doesn’t matter so much.
Okay, but then one letter domains and new gTLDs are worthless. If the domain doesn't really matter why not then get bobbuilder365q.com (or some other TLD that's cheaper).
> Okay, but then one letter domains and new gTLDs are worthless
They are, yes, and it's not exactly new news although the better word would be "pointless" (they're not exactly worthless since some people do pay for them).
Re: X.com is Twitter, but what are [a-z].com?
#58Nissan used to own z.com. As a side note, they don’t actually own nissan.com, more info at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Motors_v._Nissan_Comput...
In July 2020, Uzi Nissan died of complications from COVID-19 Wasnt expecting that :( Looks like nissan.com site is dead too, this is how it looked in 2020 https://web.archive.org/web/20200608045052/https://nissan.co...
[deleted]
Re: X.com is Twitter, but what are [a-z].com?
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can just call it Twitter, in the same way that everyone just says Facebook rather than Meta and Google rather than Alphabet.
I'm just disappointed that people go along with takeovers of useful words: x, meta, alphabet. If one was renamed "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa" would people still go along with it? What's the limit?
Alphabet is such a cringe name for a company no less. Especially with the meaning google infers. I bet they giggled like little kids in the board room that day. We're so cunning and witty! hehe!
Re: X.com is Twitter, but what are [a-z].com?
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can just call it Twitter, in the same way that everyone just says Facebook rather than Meta and Google rather than Alphabet.
I'm just disappointed that people go along with takeovers of useful words: x, meta, alphabet. If one was renamed "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa" would people still go along with it? What's the limit?
> I'm just disappointed that people go along with takeovers of useful words: x, meta, alphabet.
X is not a word.