Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Never buy a .online domain

0xsid.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 513 posts

Re: Never buy a .online domain

#291

Post by flaminHotSpeedo »

AshamedCaptain wrote: post #241
jeroenhd wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is 100% on Radix, not on Google. Google and Microsoft can (and probably should) have a registry of known-abusive websites. False positives are inevitable, so these should be taken with a grain of salt, but in most cases they're correct. Their lists are a lot more reliable than those from the "traditional" antivirus/anti-scam vendors that will list anything remotely strange to pump up their numbers. The external…

Exactly what we predicted would happen (someone would eventually put "too much faith" on this list) has literally happened, and your defense is still "well it's not Google's fault, it's a 3rd party's!". Obviously the point is not that Google was going to do it, but that others would , analogue to the process known as "self-censorship".

Self censorship requires a threat or risk of detriment if the party doesn't self censor, right? Where is that here?

What Radix does has no impact on Google, and I don't see how Google would be incentivized to pressure Radix. So I don't see how to make the leap blaming Google for Radix's incompetence. Yes, Google should recognize the risk of this happening, but they'd have to balance that against the rewards (or at least what they consider rewards)

Re: Never buy a .online domain

#292

Post by thatguy0900 »

kstrauser wrote: post #163
nativeit wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re confessing to several actual felonies here, may want to change strategies.

“…and so I made him the owner of my account, and he used that to remove himself from it!” “We’ll be right over.”

You forgot the part where he reset their email he didn't own and change their passwords so they couldn't get back into it

Re: Never buy a .online domain

#293

Post by rtsam »

habinero wrote: post #270
hamdingers wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The words in your link do not support the words in your comment. Don't be snarky unless you are certain you're correct. > a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the sta…

It does. "Unsafe" is not a fact, it's an opinion.

"When Google marks a site as "unsafe" or "dangerous" in Chrome or search results, it is a factual finding based on automated detection of specific, technical security threats, rather than a subjective opinion. These warnings are triggered by Google’s Safe Browsing technology, which scans billions of URLs daily to protect users from malicious content"

Opinions and facts in a legal context usually comes down to who is saying what. Someone personally says "this soup is bad" on a review site = opinion. A news site plastering it on their front page = fact.

A person saying something as an individual is usually considered an opinion. A company doesn't have that same protection.

Re: Never buy a .online domain

#294

Post by iamnothere »

NewJazz wrote: post #243
iamnothere wrote: post #20

The registrar relying on Google Safe Browsing as a “trigger” for suspension is the most horrifying thing I’ve seen in a while. This basically makes the entire TLD unviable for serious use.

Registry, not registrar

Thanks, yes, even worse! The registry should act on only legal orders IMHO.

Re: Never buy a .online domain

#295

Post by erinnh »

prmoustache wrote: post #289
jeroenhd wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These alternative domains are quite popular with the fediverse and other hobbyist-run groups. Affordable domains with somewhat recognisable names still available. Scam websites will use any TLD in my experience. Based on the ones that made it to my Google search results, .it and .info are the TLDs I should be blocking. When I search for "free roblox cash", most websites are .com. "Free robux" also brings forth a few…

> Affordable domains with somewhat recognisable names still available. Aren't they only affordable for the first year though?

I don’t know about most of them, but I’ve used .pw for many years for most of my domains as pw is really cheap even on renewal.

Re: Never buy a .online domain

#296

Post by al_borland »

fckgw wrote: post #272
bjt wrote: post #251

It's not about the .online TLD being "weird". The problem is that it was free. That's going to attract a swarm of fraudsters, spammers, etc, and then turn into a strong "this is probably fraud" signal in all kinds of fraud scoring systems. There are lots of domains out there other than .com that are just fine.

.online, .top, .xyz. info and .shop are some of the top TLDs that scammers use, precisely because of their rock bottom registrar fees that make them attractive for sites that have a shelf life of a few hours or a few days before being blocked. As a result, many places have a blanket "suspicious" flag for fresh domains under these TLDs. If you plan on building a legit site, do not use any of these cheap TLDs.

Paying through the nose for a .com that is remotely memorable and easy to spell is not a great path forward for a hobbyist or someone who simply wants their own domain for email.

I know someone with a .org domain, and even they have a ton of issues with false flags on their emails due to not coming from a big email provider. They’ve been blacklisted a couple times and regularly get flagged as spam. I’m surprised he hasn’t given up after dealing with this stuff for 25 years.

These new TLDs, I thought, were supposed to open up more options for regular people to get a domain that is semi-decent. Instead they’re essentially useless. Some of the prices are also still insane, due to assumed “premium” status or domain squatters.

There has to be a better way to police this stuff.

Re: Never buy a .online domain

#298

Post by CydeWeys »

b112 wrote: post #73
integralid wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No need to look for malicious intentions, this is just a feature that costs money so it's very low (or zero) priority for profit driven organisations. I wonder if finding people responsible and spamming then with their own service emails would make the team care enough to fix this. But of course that's mostly dubious, probably illegal, and shouldn't be a responsibility of some vigilante hacker

If bartenders are legally (including criminally!) liable in some jurisdictions for their customers, then certainly a chain of legal liability can exist in other industries.

What are you envisioning exactly?

Re: Never buy a .online domain

#299

Post by c22 »

krickelkrackel wrote: post #285
tracker1 wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You give someone ownership of something and they used that ownership...

It's like leaving your bike in the street, with no lock. Still theft, but you'd be up for a part of the responsibility.

It's more like leaving your bike in someone else's garage.

Re: Never buy a .online domain

#300

Post by tracker1 »

krickelkrackel wrote: post #285
tracker1 wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You give someone ownership of something and they used that ownership...

It's like leaving your bike in the street, with no lock. Still theft, but you'd be up for a part of the responsibility.

No, it's like giving someone a set of keys to your car, and they take it for a drive.
Post reply on HN