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

.garden TLD's change to a bad neighborhood

discourse.ifin.network

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 33 posts

Re: .garden TLD's change to a bad neighborhood

#11

Post by brookst »

OutOfHere wrote: post #3

It is absurd to consider a TLD bad just because it's cheap and its names were registered by some bad people. It's a bad case of stereotyping. Filters need to be better than this. There are plenty of good names within a TLD.

Eh, really?

Like is it stereotyping to say Black people tend to have darker skin than whites?

At some point, it’s not stereotyping, it’s intrinsic. And if the domain is super cheap to register, is overrun by bad actors, and is generally a nuisance… is it really stereotyping?

Collateral damage I get. Like if you’re running a convenience store and observe that teenagers in track suits and bandanas are robbing you blind (hey look I’m stereotyping), banning these kids will also ban the totally legit kid who happens to dress that way.

But? Isn’t that ok? Should the shop owner just eat continued losses for fear that eventually someone might dress like that and not be a risk?

I fear that I sound snarky, but I really don’t mean to. My point is that at a macro level stereotyping is absolutely wrong. But at a tactical, day-to-day lived experience level, how much abuse do we all have to put up with? An unlimited amount ?

Re: .garden TLD's change to a bad neighborhood

#12

Post by strictnein »

fabstei wrote: post #4

A concrete counterexample: plantura.garden is a large, reputable German-language gardening magazine / brand, and probably exactly the kind of legitimate site one would expect on .garden. So while the abuse numbers may well justify treating newly registered / low-reputation .garden domains with suspicion, blanket-blocking the entire TLD seems like it would create real collateral damage.

For businesses, it's not a valid reason to not block .garden simply because a gardening site exists. If a site is important enough, exceptions to the blanket rule can be applied.

In general though, if you want Fortune 500s to utilize your service/company, don't utilize a novelty TLD.

Re: .garden TLD's change to a bad neighborhood

#13

Post by 9dev »

brookst wrote: post #11
OutOfHere wrote: post #3

It is absurd to consider a TLD bad just because it's cheap and its names were registered by some bad people. It's a bad case of stereotyping. Filters need to be better than this. There are plenty of good names within a TLD.

Eh, really? Like is it stereotyping to say Black people tend to have darker skin than whites? At some point, it’s not stereotyping, it’s intrinsic. And if the domain is super cheap to register, is overrun by bad actors, and is generally a nuisance… is it really stereotyping? Collateral damage I get. Like if you’re running a convenience store and observe that teenagers in track suits and bandanas are robbing you blind…

> Like is it stereotyping to say Black people tend to have darker skin than whites?

Nah. But it’s stereotyping to say black people tend to commit more crimes than whites.

Which is a lot closer an analogy here, and just as wrong.

Re: .garden TLD's change to a bad neighborhood

#15

Post by qq66 »

fabstei wrote: post #4

A concrete counterexample: plantura.garden is a large, reputable German-language gardening magazine / brand, and probably exactly the kind of legitimate site one would expect on .garden. So while the abuse numbers may well justify treating newly registered / low-reputation .garden domains with suspicion, blanket-blocking the entire TLD seems like it would create real collateral damage.

I don't think that anyone claims that there aren't any legitimate sites on .garden, but the risk of using an abuse-prone TLD is that Bayesians are going to assign you an increased prior risk of abuse. Honestly the TLD is making more money from the abusers than from Plantura so they're not going to tighten up their ship, Plantura should probably move to a different TLD.

Re: .garden TLD's change to a bad neighborhood

#16

Post by 472936721 »

9dev wrote: post #13
brookst wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, really? Like is it stereotyping to say Black people tend to have darker skin than whites? At some point, it’s not stereotyping, it’s intrinsic. And if the domain is super cheap to register, is overrun by bad actors, and is generally a nuisance… is it really stereotyping? Collateral damage I get. Like if you’re running a convenience store and observe that teenagers in track suits and bandanas are robbing you blind…

> Like is it stereotyping to say Black people tend to have darker skin than whites? Nah. But it’s stereotyping to say black people tend to commit more crimes than whites. Which is a lot closer an analogy here, and just as wrong.

[flagged]

Re: .garden TLD's change to a bad neighborhood

#17

Post by unethical_ban »

amingilani wrote: post #5
OutOfHere wrote: post #3

It is absurd to consider a TLD bad just because it's cheap and its names were registered by some bad people. It's a bad case of stereotyping. Filters need to be better than this. There are plenty of good names within a TLD.

Further to your point, it harms the existing wonderful sites like https://radio.garden/—which has been featured on HN several times over the past few years. > First-year TLDs under $2 is one of the best indicators of likely abuse. Some TLDs like .xyz are truly fighting abuse while others feign ignorance. I don't understand this. The first year being discounted (or free) helped .me, and .xyz in the past. This is one y…

On a corporate network, blocking lesser-used TLDs combined with an aggressive use of DNS and web reputation filters is recommended. I work for a company that provides both services. Makes sense to keep Internet traffic on a sensitive network limited to the sites most likely to have a business case.

For end-users, less so - stick to DNS blocklists and uBlock filters for malware domains which are freely available.

Re: .garden TLD's change to a bad neighborhood

#19

Post by OutOfHere »

brookst wrote: post #11
OutOfHere wrote: post #3

It is absurd to consider a TLD bad just because it's cheap and its names were registered by some bad people. It's a bad case of stereotyping. Filters need to be better than this. There are plenty of good names within a TLD.

Eh, really? Like is it stereotyping to say Black people tend to have darker skin than whites? At some point, it’s not stereotyping, it’s intrinsic. And if the domain is super cheap to register, is overrun by bad actors, and is generally a nuisance… is it really stereotyping? Collateral damage I get. Like if you’re running a convenience store and observe that teenagers in track suits and bandanas are robbing you blind…

> is it stereotyping to say Black people tend to have darker skin

Your analogy is altogether misplaced.

> But? Isn’t that ok?

No, it never is. The hallmark of civilization avoiding collateral damage and protecting the innocent, without which we're animals.

> And if the domain is super cheap to register, is overrun by bad actors,

That is not established. The bad actors merely make noise, and get reported. The good actors stay out of the news.

Your argument is bogus because filters absolutely can be nuanced, operating at the name level. It is a non sequitur for a filter to operate at the TLD level.

> My point is that at a macro level stereotyping is absolutely wrong. But at a tactical, day-to-day lived experience level

Huh. That is just laughable and sad. Stereotyping is wrong at every level, and it's even more wrong at the everyday level.

Re: .garden TLD's change to a bad neighborhood

#20

Post by [deleted] »

brookst wrote: post #11
OutOfHere wrote: post #3

It is absurd to consider a TLD bad just because it's cheap and its names were registered by some bad people. It's a bad case of stereotyping. Filters need to be better than this. There are plenty of good names within a TLD.

Eh, really? Like is it stereotyping to say Black people tend to have darker skin than whites? At some point, it’s not stereotyping, it’s intrinsic. And if the domain is super cheap to register, is overrun by bad actors, and is generally a nuisance… is it really stereotyping? Collateral damage I get. Like if you’re running a convenience store and observe that teenagers in track suits and bandanas are robbing you blind…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN