Domains are signaling. If you have a .online domain you are signaling you can't afford the equivalent .com domain. All the TLD annoyance is a consequence of the lack of status pressure ameliorating the experience of those domain holders (in the same way you never see public health crises in rich neighborhoods)
Never buy a .online domain
381–390 of 513 posts
Re: Never buy a .online domain
#382Domains are signaling. If you have a .online domain you are signaling you can't afford the equivalent .com domain. All the TLD annoyance is a consequence of the lack of status pressure ameliorating the experience of those domain holders (in the same way you never see public health crises in rich neighborhoods)
If you have a .online domain you are signaling you can't afford the equivalent .com domain.
Or don't want to pay a $2k ransom to a name squatter... For some businesses that is a rounding error (saas, other high volume high margin stuff), but for small businesses like restaurants or event planners, spending that much on a domain name would be foolish.
Re: Never buy a .online domain
#383Does anybody know any good alternative to Name Cheap? It seems like they keep raising prices on all the domains. Website is very sluggish, especially for finding domains quickly.
The AWS registrar is actually not bad.
Re: Never buy a .online domain
#384Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is perfectly legal to say, for example, "Kyle Rittenhouse is a murderer" despite him being acquitted. That's ... not quite true. I wouldn't go that far.
Sure it is, that's how the 1A works. Saying he was convicted of murder is not true, but calling him a murderer is an opinion. Your opinion doesn't even have to be reasonable. It just has to be based on facts that both you and I have. 1A rights are construed really broadly. The courts don't do the 'he wasn't legally convicted therefore it's illegal to call him one' thing.
If that were true, news organizations wouldn't be as careful as they are to preface the word "alleged" before the behavior -- before or after a trial. I don't think you'll find any reputable commercial newsgathering organization that makes a plain statement that Kyle Rittenhouse is a murderer.
The First Amendment doesn't protect the speaker against all forms of defamation (though it does put some barriers up that make it harder to win in some circumstances). If it did, defamation as a cause of action wouldn't exist at all.
As a practical matter, though, this is largely theoretical. Once you've been through the rigamarole of arrest, prosecution, and trial, even if you're found not guilty of the crimes committed, the reputational damage is just too widespread. You're not going to go after the defamers: there are just too many, and if you tried, there would be a fair question as to whether you have any positive reputation left to injure. Your life is pretty much ruined. It's a pretty terrible situation for the wrongly accused.
Re: Never buy a .online domain
#385.com is definitely the gold standard, I got an .io more than a decade ago and if I would go back in time, I would just use .com, the pricing for .io been increasing for no apparent reason.
People often make the mistake of treating .io like a gTLD, when it's actually a ccTLD for the "British Indian Ocean Territory" etc. ccTLDs have always had risks, especially when they are for a really tiny region. Similar issues to .io happened with the popularity of .tv domains, which again is a ccTLD. The government of Tuvalu sought to increase income from sales of their ccTLD and prices went up. Tuvalu is such a sm…
Interesting, thanks for the info, definitely didn’t know that back in ~2012, but lessons learned, only .com or .org I have been buying in the past years.
Re: Never buy a .online domain
#386Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not talking about 1A rights or public figures. We are talking about Opinions (Protected) vs Facts (Not Protected) Defamation cases where individuals say something are usually considered opinions and companies are usually considered facts in the eyes of the courts. I say "Usually" Defamation also DOES NOT require intent, but it requires a minimum level of fault (negligence) Google saying something is unsafe in the web…
We are absolutely talking about the 1A lol. Defamation is 1A law. It is one of the few recognized exceptions to the 1A. And we are also 100% talking about public figures. "Public figures" include companies and it's a critical part of 1A since Times v Sullivan. Google is a US company and has 1A rights. That's how it works. The rest of what you said is nonsense and is your idea of how it should work, but has nothing to…
To be more accurate, defamation is civil tort law, circumscribed by the First Amendment. (Defamation as a cause of action is quite old, reaching back to our English common law roots, and goes back further in history, I believe.)
Re: Never buy a .online domain
#387Oh man. The infinite loops of impossible verification by large companies that should know better are massive pain peeve of mine. This goes right to the top for me, along the ubiquitous "please verify your account" emails with NO OPTION to click "that's NOT me, somebody misused my email". Either people who do this for a living have no clue how to do their job, or, depressingly more likely, their goals are just complet…
It's entirely on us as citizens to leaving them as pet peeves instead of crafting them into strategic law that makes them not only illegal but shunned. A little bit of structure goes a long way here.
Re: Never buy a .online domain
#388Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a newspaper publishes a story about a business and someone takes it upon themselves to attack the business, the attacker is at fault, regardless of the veracity of the newspapers claims.
I am in Canada, but I think it is the same in the US? A newspaper can be responsible here. For example, if they say "people should riot" and a riot happens, the newspaper could be responsible for all actions that resulted the same as if they were the ones doing the crime. Same with if they become aware of defamation and fail to retract and make a statement. But newspapers will generally also thoroughly investigate th…
It is not the same in the U.S. (And, to be honest, I'm quite doubtful this is true in Canada, though I could be persuaded through legal citations that it is.)
Re: Never buy a .online domain
#389Oh man. The infinite loops of impossible verification by large companies that should know better are massive pain peeve of mine. This goes right to the top for me, along the ubiquitous "please verify your account" emails with NO OPTION to click "that's NOT me, somebody misused my email". Either people who do this for a living have no clue how to do their job, or, depressingly more likely, their goals are just complet…
Someone constantly adds my Gmail address as their Gmail account's backup address. I constantly remove it whenever Gmail sends me the notification. I can't help but think there is some method for the other person to steal my Gmail account if I never remove my email as their backup.
You could try stealing theirs. Surely, one of the forgot-password flows must use the recovery email.
Re: Never buy a .online domain
#390Oh man. The infinite loops of impossible verification by large companies that should know better are massive pain peeve of mine. This goes right to the top for me, along the ubiquitous "please verify your account" emails with NO OPTION to click "that's NOT me, somebody misused my email". Either people who do this for a living have no clue how to do their job, or, depressingly more likely, their goals are just complet…
> Oh man. The infinite loops of impossible verification by large companies that should know better are massive pain peeve of mine. I got hit by this from google. 1. Gmail added requirement for 2FA on my primary email address. Since I had no phone number on file, it instead used my recovery email address. Thankfully, I still had the password for my recovery email address, and could continue to (2). 2. Gmail added requ…
Google made it very clear years ago that they shouldn't be trusted with anything irreplaceable/that would cause major problems if you lost access.
Once it became clear that they'd shifted from "crappy customer service" to (IMNSHO) "we fetishize the complete absence of customer service" it became dangerous to depend on them. Really, what's the worst that could happen? Maybe someone spams emojis in live chat on a game livestream at the request of the streamer on a personal account, it gets banned for abuse, Google recognizes that it's linked to other services and locks down everything? But that's so unrealistic I'm sure it could never happen.
It's not like they also have the ability to identify links between multiple accounts accessed by the same person and have automated processes that might stomp the associated accounts as well. Why, that would probably require something like allowing poorly-understood automated agents to take actions on their own!