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

The story of .io

citizen-ex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 80 posts

Re: The story of .io

#71

Post by stvswn »

aakilfernandes wrote: post #31
stvswn wrote: post #18

Some additional context from wikipedia: the island was originally 100% uninhabited in the 19th century when the French brought slaves there. Over the course of the next century, it was mostly privately owned, and the majority of residents were employees of plantations who were under temporary contracts and would return to Mauritania or the Seychelles after the contract was over. Ever since the slave days, there was a…

Is 10 minutes reading an article and contemplating an unjustice really that big a burden on your life? No one is asking you to start self-flagellating...

I'm not arguing that it's too big of a burden to contemplate the injustice. I'm arguing that the scale of the injustice may not be as great as the author contends, and there may have been a competing thing of value that was gained by the injustice, and that it is naive to argue that a government removing someone from their home is always an injustice regardless of context.

Re: The story of .io

#72

Post by duskwuff »

SturgeonsLaw wrote: post #57
amelius wrote: post #56

I'm wondering if it is possible for a TLD holder to, at will, seize any domains below it, and, for example, extort the owners of the domain? And from that perspective, is it really smart to choose an exotic TLD name?

This was a cause for concern in many people's minds with the .ly TLD belonging to Libya

The .LY ccTLD is particularly problematic because many countries, including the US, have trade sanctions in place against Libya. Among other things, this makes it difficult to get an SSL certificate for a .ly domain.

Re: The story of .io

#73

Post by duskwuff »

pki wrote: post #25
quadrangle wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, and people don't use .com well either. But "commercial" actually is a reasonable class of site. Um, strict TLDs like .gov are misused?? What's a .gov site that isn't a government site? That is actually regulated… .io is a stupid TLD name (except for actual Indian Ocean sites). I think what bugs me is "some technological tie" — wut? It's not anything. Input/Output isn't a nifty technological idea even. Re: squat…

I'd argue that maybe things like http://davisut4health.gov/ and http://bart.gov might not properly belong under .gov?

BART, the Bay Area Rapid Transit light-rail line, is perfectly appropriate as a .GOV site. It's administrated as a branch of the California government, with a Board of Directors elected by residents of the area they serve.

I don't know what davisut4health.gov was, but right now it just appears to be an alternative URL for the Davis County Library. (And oddly enough, your post appears to be the only reference to this domain on the Internet!)

Re: The story of .io

#74

Post by zyxley »

stvswn wrote: post #68
zyxley wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> whether they were really permanent residents I think it's pretty strange not to think of somebody as a permanent resident of the place they've lived since birth.

I said it was in dispute, not that I agreed. If you squat on gov't land in the US and have kids there, would the gov't just cede the land to you after an appropriate amount of time? Maybe yes, I guess, but it's complicated.

This kind of thing is why adverse possession laws are good for society as a whole despite the inconvenience they can cause on a personal level.

Re: The story of .io

#75

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

michaelwww wrote: post #36
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm suggesting that liberals who don't temper their empathy with practical realities risked being dismissed as holier-than-thou dreamers. Okay, but why should they here? Does the US really need to maintain global dominance for any reason beyond the pursuit of power?

I'm not here to debate that. I fervently wish we Americans were spending less money on the military and more on educating our children. I took part in the military. I understand it's a giant machine (military industrial complex) that doesn't just wind down in a couple years or even decades without sustained public pressure. I'm here to understand the point of this article. If the author were advocating giving the .io…

> I'm not sure what is being advocated.

Nothing. The article exists to make you think, and consider the history of this piece of Internet space. It doesn't need to advocate for something.

Re: The story of .io

#76

Post by quadrangle »

mynameisvlad wrote: post #34
quadrangle wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, and people don't use .com well either. But "commercial" actually is a reasonable class of site. Um, strict TLDs like .gov are misused?? What's a .gov site that isn't a government site? That is actually regulated… .io is a stupid TLD name (except for actual Indian Ocean sites). I think what bugs me is "some technological tie" — wut? It's not anything. Input/Output isn't a nifty technological idea even. Re: squat…

You misread, I said .gov is a strict TLD, as in you need to be some sort of government agency to get one. Although that's washy as well, but not to the extent that .com/net/org/io are. Ha, let's be honest, they will always squat com and net first as long as they're the most popular TLDs, which I don't see changing anytime soon.

Ah, indeed, sorry for my misreading

Re: The story of .io

#78

Post by keithblaha »

quarterto wrote: post #53
grinnick wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you buy them for cheaper than $100?

Gandi has them for $35/year. Nic.io itself is £60 for the first year, but it goes down after a few years (I'm currently paying £30 plus tax).

currently $32.88/year with namecheap.com

Re: The story of .io

#79

Post by nickysielicki »

tawy wrote: post #64
nickysielicki wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my original comment on this article: > [the internet was a place where] Anyone could publish and be heard and read about certain taboo subjects and not be publicly shamed for entertaining a certain thought. It's hilarious to me that you're doing just that. You're trying to shame me for finding some ideas interesting simply because it came from a crazy person? Does finding a piece of writing interesting imply tha…

Free speech is a double-edged sword. It means you get to say whatever you want, and there are plenty avenues to do so online. But if you say despicable things, people will (and should) judge & shame you for it. I'm not accusing you of anything—merely pointing out that publicly endorsing the manifesto of a terrorist and serial killer does not look good. It's not unlike if you had listed Mein Kampf as a favorite read.…

Well that's your personal call to make. And I just have to accept that. I'm not willing to concede publicly liking an essay just because some people are going to be uncomfortable with it. It's political in nature. Are you going to not consider me if I call myself a communist or an anarchist? If I call myself trans-gendered or homosexual? Where's that line for you?

I can totally understand not hiring someone for publicly endorsing Mein Kampf. It's a love-letter to racism. It's the same reason I can understand not hiring a transphobic or homophobic individual. You can't hire someone if brief research turns up that they have hatred for a group of people. What happens when one of your employees or customers falls into those groups?

But what I don't totally understand is how Industrial Society and Its Future falls into that. I get that associating with a murderer is probably bad PR. But I like to think most people would give me the benefit of the doubt and assume that I think killing people is really uncool and not acceptable work behavior. By endorsing it, I'm not saying that I hate some group of people (because the essay doesn't really condemn anyone specifically, besides progressives). I'm not endorsing a call-to-violence (because the essay isn't a call to violence, and actually has a few points where he admits he thinks he might be getting some things wrong). I'm just saying I thought it was a profound piece of writing. Not even that I agree with it, just that it was some reasoned opinions I'd never heard. It's even been submitted on this website before, which is ironically where I found it in the first place.

So Mein Kampf makes people uncomfortable, and that's something that's unacceptable. But where/why does the Unabomber Manifesto make people uncomfortable? If the fact that it was written by a murderer alone makes it an unacceptable thing to find interesting to my employer, I think they're being short-sighted and I regret nothing. They obviously haven't read it or even skimmed the wikipedia page on it. They're not just judging a book by its cover, they're judging a person by a book that they're judging by the name on its cover.

I might find I regret this when I find out that I'm unemployable after school, though. Oh well. Such is youth.

Re: The story of .io

#80

Post by nickysielicki »

tim333 wrote: post #58
nickysielicki wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my original comment on this article: > [the internet was a place where] Anyone could publish and be heard and read about certain taboo subjects and not be publicly shamed for entertaining a certain thought. It's hilarious to me that you're doing just that. You're trying to shame me for finding some ideas interesting simply because it came from a crazy person? Does finding a piece of writing interesting imply tha…

I don't think the net's changed that much. You can still find places to be pro racism and the like. Check out r/coontown for example. Also it was never the case such people were not criticised / shamed. Free speech works both ways you know - if you're free to say what you want then others are free to slag it off.

> I don't think the net's changed that much. You can still find places to be pro racism and the like. Check out r/coontown for example.

Yeah that's wholly disinteresting to me. Firstly, because that is a trolling subreddit. If it was a serious racism subreddit it would be more interesting, because I could debate with people who actually feel that way and hear their arguments, instead of angsty 15 year olds posting unfunny images.

I guess I shouldn't be arguing that fringe opinions are not available on the internet-- they are. What I should be arguing is that fringe opinions are much easier to ignore on the internet now. We've created a lot of information and ways to filter it, and now we can effectively ignore them. I think downvoting and upvoting and hiveminds are what really has killed meaningful discourse. That's why I like the 4chan model so much-- every post gets to take up space and can't be ignored.

For an extra dose of tin-foil-hat, I think reddit could be doing some vote manipulation in the larger subreddits. No one has really challenged the fact that they stopped including upvotes and downvotes in their JSON as of a few years ago. Without them it's really difficult to collect information and do analysis on certain users and keywords that anything is happening.

(That's a fun idea, reddit should stream metadata about what's going on in the site to interested people.)

Post reply on HN