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

491–500 of 513 posts

Re: Never buy a .online domain

#491

Post by ectospheno »

slekker wrote: post #454
ectospheno wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Despite blocking 66 TLDs and all IDN ccTLDs on my home dns I didn’t have these blocked. Guess I’ll consider it. Once you have the hagezi rpz files including threat information feed though you really have blocked most silliness.

Which other ones do you block?

I'll append the current list below. My primary issue is protecting my son. His educational difficulties present a problem when it comes to determining when a link is good or bad. It is easier to cast a very wide net and whitelist good sites. There are other reasons for some of the TLDs but I can't go into that here.

  ad ads adult af alibaba alipay analytics anquan asia baidu
  bar bcn bible blockbuster by cf cfd cg chintai christmas
  citic click cloud cn coop country creditunion cyou data
  dish diy dm dot dtv dvr et feedback food forum fun gift
  hiphop hiv hk hkt host icbc il in iq ir kfh kp ky latino
  lb lifestyle link living locker lol love ly ml mm mo
  mobile moscow mov music my nhk ni nz observer ollo online
  ott ph phone pid porn press property pw quest realty
  redstone ren rest ru sbs sex sexy shouji site sling
  so sohu space st store su sy tech to top trust ua unicom
  uno vana ve wang website xihuan xxx yandex ye yun zip

Re: Never buy a .online domain

#492

Post by Buggem »

ectospheno wrote: post #491
slekker wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which other ones do you block?

I'll append the current list below. My primary issue is protecting my son. His educational difficulties present a problem when it comes to determining when a link is good or bad. It is easier to cast a very wide net and whitelist good sites. There are other reasons for some of the TLDs but I can't go into that here. ad ads adult af alibaba alipay analytics anquan asia baidu bar bcn bible blockbuster by cf cfd cg chin…

Why do you block so many country TLDs? New Zealand is an especially weird block...

Re: Never buy a .online domain

#493

Post by otterley »

pocksuppet wrote: post #393
otterley wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious as to how you would prove that it would be impossible for any resource accessible under a given DNS domain to ever cause harm to anyone else.

You don't. Google has to prove that something on that domain can cause harm.

I'm afraid that's not how it works in modern law in the U.S.:

"In addition to establishing that the defendant was aware of his statement's defamatory meaning, the plaintiff also must show that the defamatory statement is false. The falsity requirement has evolved gradually through a two-step process. Initially, the courts recognized that truth was a defense in a defamation suit. With time, however, the burden of proof on the issue of the statement's truth or falsity shifted to the plaintiff, so that now a statement is not actionable unless it can be proven false."

https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?params=/c... (pp. 851ff).

Re: Never buy a .online domain

#494

Post by akoboldfrying »

harimau777 wrote: post #469
akoboldfrying wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fundamentally, this was google's fault for misusing a recovery email for 2FA. While this would absolutely suck and I sympathise with anyone getting hit by this out of the blue, it's pretty clearly your fault, not Google's. What should they have done? Just permit everyone to avoid upgrading to 2FA indefinitely? That would result in relatively more account hacks overall, for which they would inevitably be roasted in…

Personally, if their 2FA doesn't work, then they should definitely permit everyone to avoid upgrading to 2FA indefinitely.

If their 2FA doesn't work, I agree.

Re: Never buy a .online domain

#495

Post by otterley »

ssiddharth wrote: post #455
otterley wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s my question. I’ve launched many fresh websites that have not been marked as unsafe by Google. If they were habitually doing this, there would be far more reports of it. I suspect there is something the author is not telling us.

The site is already back online after the post. You can check yourself. If I really did have malicious content on the site, this post would have had zero effect on the result.

How did you get it back online?

Re: Never buy a .online domain

#496

Post by ectospheno »

Buggem wrote: post #492
ectospheno wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll append the current list below. My primary issue is protecting my son. His educational difficulties present a problem when it comes to determining when a link is good or bad. It is easier to cast a very wide net and whitelist good sites. There are other reasons for some of the TLDs but I can't go into that here. ad ads adult af alibaba alipay analytics anquan asia baidu bar bcn bible blockbuster by cf cfd cg chin…

Why do you block so many country TLDs? New Zealand is an especially weird block...

Certain file hosting services located there. I agree that one is a wide net.

Re: Never buy a .online domain

#497

Post by zadikian »

NewJazz wrote: post #255
zadikian wrote: post #118

But was this because it's .online? I got one and it was fine. The only issue was the usual trap with all Namecheap domains: They tell you it's all set, and it works, until they randomly email you a week later asking for email verification. If you don't do that promptly, they suspend your domain until you trigger a resend. Which is easy to fix but also strange.

The blog post details that the TLD registry, Radix, decided that getting put on Google's safe browsing list means they put a serverhold on your domain, which prevents you from getting off the safe browsing list. So yes, this appears to be a TLD- (or at least registry-) specific issue.

Oh, I did read but didn't understand that Radix was the TLD owner. Makes sense.

Re: Never buy a .online domain

#498

Post by def13 »

al_borland wrote: post #296
fckgw wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

.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 h…

If you live in the west/developed world, the solution for hobbyists/small projects/individuals is generally to use the a local ccTLD. I'm from Australia, I use a `.au`. Between `.au` (which they opened up recently) and `id.au` its not hard to find a memorable/useful url for about $20/year, as people/companies have been mostly keeping to the `.{org,com,net}.au` names.

I see a lot of .fr, .de, .jp (and many other European ccTLDs) used by people from those places for their hobbyists/small projects/individual purposes. The regulators and operators of these domains tend to be pretty decently reputable. They often require proof of either local residence/citizenship or local business, which keeps domains more available, at the cost of requiring you to hand over some identifying information.

Now for whatever reason, I don't really see the `.us` one in use at all, so that is potentially a big exception to the initial premise for people from the US. I presume that its due to combination of it being operated by GoDaddy and the fact the `.com` and `.org` are sort of defacto US ccTLDs..

Re: Never buy a .online domain

#499

Post by habinero »

otterley wrote: post #384
habinero wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mak…

Nope. News companies don't do it because of different reasons.

For one, it's an opinion, and traditional journalism likes to pretend it doesn't have those.

The bigger reason is anyone can sue for anything in the US. Litigation can be ruinously expensive, and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars just to get it thrown out. Hundreds of lawsuits gets expensive, even if you win or hand out $25K "get lost" settlements.

(That's why SLAPP laws are so important -- a strong SLAPP law like CA kills this behavior)

Whether or not something is prudent behavior has nothing to do with legality.

Re: Never buy a .online domain

#500

Post by habinero »

otterley wrote: post #386
habinero wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

That's more general, not more accurate. Civil tort law is a broad class of things. It's like saying "to be more accurate, a supermarket is a type of store". Well, yes.
Post reply on HN