I’ve got a somewhat questionable tld for my main email address (really nice short one)
So far zero issue - somewhat to my surprise (was expecting delivery issues). Even got some compliments from people that thought it’s great
Phishers Love New TLDs Like .shop, .top and .xyz
91–100 of 220 posts
Re: Phishers Love New TLDs Like .shop, .top and .xyz
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would argue if you aren't doing some combination of: - Hosting a website - Operating email accounts - Infrastructure (mail, DNS, etc.) - Misc. Services (Minecraft server, TeamSpeak server, something) Then you're squatting. Like if you own turkeyonapig.com and it's literally just a web page with a picture of a turkey sitting on a pig? Not squatting. It's odd but it's clearly doing exactly what it's meant to be doing…
>I would argue if you aren't doing some combination of: [...] cloudflare offers free website hosting and email forwarding, so it's basically free for a squatter to check those boxes. >I mean, it depends. One would argue that people going to nissan.com are clearly looking for the Japanese car company, so it's in the public's interest that that domain be sold to them. So you basically want the Kelo v. City of New Londo…
> cloudflare offers free website hosting and email forwarding, so it's basically free for a squatter to check those boxes.
Sure. But it still takes time, or as someone else suggested, a GPT query. Putting literally even the tiniest amount of work in front of squatting will reduce the amount of squatting.
> So you basically want the Kelo v. City of New London decision to be applied to domains as well? You own "erictrump.com" but aren't the president-elect's son? Well tough luck because it's "in the public's interest" that president-elect's son gets it rather than you.
I mean, it is. And putting the phrase in scare quotes isn't a counterpoint.
One could argue in fact that one of the multitude of reasons for the rise of platforms is that it's so hard to find anything on the actual internet, and part of that in turn can be blamed squarely on squatting.
Re: Phishers Love New TLDs Like .shop, .top and .xyz
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would argue if you aren't doing some combination of: - Hosting a website - Operating email accounts - Infrastructure (mail, DNS, etc.) - Misc. Services (Minecraft server, TeamSpeak server, something) Then you're squatting. Like if you own turkeyonapig.com and it's literally just a web page with a picture of a turkey sitting on a pig? Not squatting. It's odd but it's clearly doing exactly what it's meant to be doing…
And you think a domain squatter would be deterred by high pricing and not just point every single domain to a VPS with a „Hey guys buy my domains“ page? Or even just point them to any random IP, since DNS is one of the legitimate uses you named?
I mean that's basically what most do now. I'm saying the domain should direct to an actual website, irrespective of how useful or large it is.
See my example of turkeyonapig.com.
Re: Phishers Love New TLDs Like .shop, .top and .xyz
#94The whole environment of the newer gTLDs just feels… gross. I rarely find a reputable business that is using anything but .com or .co.XX as the primary domain. Putting on my regular-person hat: When I see a billboard or print ad with e.g. `example.travel`, I read that as a social media handle and not a website address like `example.com` would convey. In public perception, dot com means websites. Always has. (Tangenti…
> I rarely find a reputable business that is using anything but .com or .co.XX as the primary domain What about all the other ccTLDs? Okay, maybe not .ly, .by, .ru and friends, but what do you have against .it, .fr, .de, es?
.ly, .by and .ru are legitimate in their own context.
https://www.mos.ru (Moscow's city site), https://www.belarus.by/ (Belarus' tourism site) and https://libyaobserver.ly (Libyan newspaper) are three examples.
And I'd be almost as suspicious of buy-viagra-pills.de as I would be of buy-viagra-pills.ru.
Re: Phishers Love New TLDs Like .shop, .top and .xyz
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
NotSquattingAsAService startups will appear which will create the "not squatting" fake site for you for $2. That's an improvement. Adding $2 to $5 to the cost of a squatted domain will start to dissuade people who squat on tens of thousands of domains, if they have to suddenly have to pay $20,000 to $50,000 for the not squatting service.
>That's an improvement. Adding $2 to $5 to the cost of a squatted domain will start to dissuade people who squat on tens of thousands of domains There's no way static site hosting and a email service costs $2-$5 per year per domain, especially for bulk users. Even if we take that price at face value, a .com domain already costs around $10/year. A 20%-50% increase will only change behavior at the margins. It won't mak…
To be clear, when I said make it cost more, I was thinking more like taxes. Similar to how we should be taxing vacant homes to raise the cost of keeping empty properties and lower the rents in turn.
Re: Phishers Love New TLDs Like .shop, .top and .xyz
#96The whole environment of the newer gTLDs just feels… gross. I rarely find a reputable business that is using anything but .com or .co.XX as the primary domain. Putting on my regular-person hat: When I see a billboard or print ad with e.g. `example.travel`, I read that as a social media handle and not a website address like `example.com` would convey. In public perception, dot com means websites. Always has. (Tangenti…
I’m disappointed at the arbitrary decision-making that lets the registrars deem certain domains to automatically be “premium” and mark them up appropriately. It feels like that’s an additional layer of extortion on top (doubly so when the premium price carries into the full renewal price, too).
It's the registries not the registrars that classify some domains as premium. I think they're a risky product because you don't even get the limited price protections provided by section 2.10c of the registry agreement, but there seems to be a market for them [1].
1. https://domainnamewire.com/2024/08/28/radix-sets-record-for-...
Re: Phishers Love New TLDs Like .shop, .top and .xyz
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whether people are more easily fooled by dell.shop dell.computershop.com is a non sequitur from the rather wordy disquisition about why people fall for the scams in general. The eye sees dell first in clear letters for both urls. Their sick relative doesn’t change much here. I would honestly not be sure if either is a scam for the url alone. The improbable deal at the other end is the only meaningful signal.
> Whether people are more easily fooled by dell.shop dell.computershop.com is a non sequitur from the rather wordy disquisition about why people fall for the scams in general. It isn't. People fall because probabilities align. Something can catch their eye to knock them out of it. A bad URL is a bad probability (for the scammer) in the chain, a really good URL is another good probability. If your assessment is that b…
Most people don't understand URLs.
Remember that Google was (is?) trying to remove the URL bar. Not just because it reinforces search as the main product and gateway to the web, but also because URLs are kind of hard for most people.
Which brings us to the original argument: is this a reason to ban gTLDs? Surely the cost of banning gTLDs outweighs the enormous benefits of making it easy for society's productive users to find names they like.
We also shouldn't discount the incredible benefit of having additional namespaces and markets positioned against domain name squatters. gTLDs linearly increase the costs to squatters. Good names can be found with lots of alternative gTLD offerings, which greatly increases the supply side for builders and entrepreneurs.
Ultimately gTLDs probably won't be banned simply because there's money to be made by the ICANN and registrars.
Re: Phishers Love New TLDs Like .shop, .top and .xyz
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting! Now that you mention it, I did buy a .luxury domain for this purpose - a Gemini server. I also bought a .ski to have a domain with my (polish) last name.
It's great to be able to get silly domains for projects, back to the old days of IRC vanity hosts, but can you imagine seeing a link to something like jackets.luxury and going "yeah that seems legit, I'm definitely giving them my card details"
Yes that is completely normal and the my younger relatives would not even think twice.
In the TikTok and Instagram community people are spending billions not only on random domains (like tiedyeshirts.xyz) but often to venmo or zelle listed on profiles. My sister and thousands like her send money to faceless profiles to buy mystery boxes.
Re: Phishers Love New TLDs Like .shop, .top and .xyz
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's because it's a ccTLD, not because it's not dot-com though. The powers that be could very well decide to just promote it to be a gTLD if they wanted to not destroy stuff for no reason. Actual gTLDs aren't susceptible to the same kinds of issues.
> The powers that be could very well decide to just promote it to be a gTLD No, they can’t do that. Every two-letter TLD is defined to be a ccTLD, and nothing else.
[deleted]
Re: Phishers Love New TLDs Like .shop, .top and .xyz
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's because it's a ccTLD, not because it's not dot-com though. The powers that be could very well decide to just promote it to be a gTLD if they wanted to not destroy stuff for no reason. Actual gTLDs aren't susceptible to the same kinds of issues.
> The powers that be could very well decide to just promote it to be a gTLD No, they can’t do that. Every two-letter TLD is defined to be a ccTLD, and nothing else.
If they did that anyway, who would stop them? This seems like a great time to make an exception.