121–130 of 195 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We should avoid words and concepts which places the blame unfairly on mostly powerless individuals.
"Haunted" is actually a pretty good descriptor. Something terrible happened here in the past. The intangible spirts from this terrible event remain. The new owner discovers his pictures scream at him and his closet constantly fills up with blood. The fault, ultimately, belongs with the one who did the terrible deed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> what has actually happened is that the domain is blacklisted by entirely too powerful entities. The problem lies with these blacklisting entities, not with the domain, and the solution must be done there, too. It should not be a domain owner’s responsibility to get out of being unfairly blacklisted. These kinds of blacklists exist because these domains have been used to host scams or distribute spam (or some other…
I'm guessing here because I'm not the author but I believe this statement is directed towards the blocklisting entities because they don't provide transparencies or a method to reach them to resolve issues with a domain once it's aquired by someone else. That absolutely is the issue of those entities.
With tricks like this, it's not a surprise to see why the companies operating blocklists are hesitant to make this process easy; after all, what's to prevent the phishers from temporarily stating that the issue has been resolved to get out of the denylist, and then restarting their campaign again?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really disagree with pulling the power dynamic angle into focus here. Injustice can also be carried out by the "little man", sometimes even at scale, and is every bit as awful to remedy if not even more so. The issue is with the issue: people/systems (big and small) blacklisting an ownable identifier pointing to some ownable content without any care for the lifecycle of either. Painting this with a social brush is…
> The issue is with the issue: people/systems (big and small) blacklisting an ownable identifier pointing to some ownable content without any care for the lifecycle of either. Does the lifecycle matter much, though? Kind of like a carfax report. Tells you whether a vehicle you’re buying has been in an accident before (if it has, the value goes down because maybe there’s some latent issue that isn’t obvious at the tim…
How could it not? It's essentially the same issue as an unmaintained phonebook or a map. What's at a given address or phone number changes, and if your solution is not equipped to handle that change, your solution is bad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really disagree with pulling the power dynamic angle into focus here. Injustice can also be carried out by the "little man", sometimes even at scale, and is every bit as awful to remedy if not even more so. The issue is with the issue: people/systems (big and small) blacklisting an ownable identifier pointing to some ownable content without any care for the lifecycle of either. Painting this with a social brush is…
I couldn't disagree more. What you've written is both apologetics and simply untrue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really disagree with pulling the power dynamic angle into focus here. Injustice can also be carried out by the "little man", sometimes even at scale, and is every bit as awful to remedy if not even more so. The issue is with the issue: people/systems (big and small) blacklisting an ownable identifier pointing to some ownable content without any care for the lifecycle of either. Painting this with a social brush is…
> The issue is with the issue: people/systems (big and small) blacklisting an ownable identifier pointing to some ownable content without any care for the lifecycle of either. Does the lifecycle matter much, though? Kind of like a carfax report. Tells you whether a vehicle you’re buying has been in an accident before (if it has, the value goes down because maybe there’s some latent issue that isn’t obvious at the tim…
"Heads up, this is a pre-owned domain. Do you want to get the Namefax for $0.99 before you buy?"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The issue is with the issue: people/systems (big and small) blacklisting an ownable identifier pointing to some ownable content without any care for the lifecycle of either. Does the lifecycle matter much, though? Kind of like a carfax report. Tells you whether a vehicle you’re buying has been in an accident before (if it has, the value goes down because maybe there’s some latent issue that isn’t obvious at the tim…
> Does the lifecycle matter much, though? How could it not? It's essentially the same issue as an unmaintained phonebook or a map. What's at a given address or phone number changes, and if your solution is not equipped to handle that change, your solution is bad.
But that’s not a fixable problem in my eyes. At least not without extreme and sweeping changes driven by some kind of government regulation or ICANN mandates which, if enacted, would probably be highly criticized on HN.
There are just too many block lists for domains (literally thousands if you include open source ad blockers).
The lifecycle “should” matter in a perfect world, I agree.
Calling a domain “haunted” is an awful, terrible way to frame it. It places all the badness of the domain on the domain itself , as if the domain name had something with it which could be removed or fixed by the domain owner. Instead, what has actually happened is that the domain is blacklisted by entirely too powerful entities. The problem lies with these blacklisting entities, not with the domain, and the solution…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Haunted" is actually a pretty good descriptor. Something terrible happened here in the past. The intangible spirts from this terrible event remain. The new owner discovers his pictures scream at him and his closet constantly fills up with blood. The fault, ultimately, belongs with the one who did the terrible deed.
blacklisted would be a good description as well.
With some domains, you merely will find a higher % of your emails land in spam, or your content ranks a bit worse, etc.
There's a somewhat random continuum. Haunting is a funny word that does sort of include some variability.
Some practical advice here: do not change your canonical domain[1] name unless you really really have to.
If he had just set his fun new domain to redirect to the existing domain, instead of making the new domain the canonical, it likely would have had no negative effect.
I’m not saying this is how things should work. But the practical reality is that your domain name is like a Social Security number: it’s the basis for assigning a type of reputation score, even though it was not intended to do that originally.
[1] The domain at which your web pages finally load, after all redirects have completed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Does the lifecycle matter much, though? How could it not? It's essentially the same issue as an unmaintained phonebook or a map. What's at a given address or phone number changes, and if your solution is not equipped to handle that change, your solution is bad.
I agree. But that’s not a fixable problem in my eyes. At least not without extreme and sweeping changes driven by some kind of government regulation or ICANN mandates which, if enacted, would probably be highly criticized on HN. There are just too many block lists for domains (literally thousands if you include open source ad blockers). The lifecycle “should” matter in a perfect world, I agree.
As you say there are plenty of volunteer maintained blocklists as well, and there are also the countless privately deployed filters using those lists, which may or may not get updated properly. That's the "little man" part, and is why I think the characterization the thread starter was trying to push is ill-fitting.