The dark side of .io • Hacker News Board

Re: The dark side of .io

#61

Post by thizzbuzz » Tue, Nov 11, 2014, 4:18 AM UTC

sologoub wrote: post #58

thizzbuzz wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That said, I don't really see the argument that it is somehow their land. I don't see a good argument that any land belongs to any person on earth. That said, subsisting off a single piece of land for 250 years is a much better claim than "we want this for economic/military development". I also tend not to side with the party that gasses 1000 pet dogs as part of their forced relocation process.

Got a citation for that dog figure?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Greatbatch

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/09/18/the-story-of-the-chag...

About 1,000 pet dogs were taken – some straight from screaming children – and gassed with exhaust fumes from American military vehicles.

Re: The dark side of .io

#62

Post by cbd1984 » Tue, Nov 11, 2014, 4:26 AM UTC

cbd1984 wrote: post #28

tarminian wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First time I've seen it. I think it has a lot of relevance, we all need to think more about the things we purchase. That chocolate bar you just ate was probably produced using slave labor, those new cool shoes, made with sweat shop labor by young girls. To just brush off articles like this is insensitive.

If everyone's guilty, it means nobody is. If everyone has something they did, didn't do, or didn't stop which implicates them in being a horrible human being, all it becomes is an endless cycle of "well, you did that " "oh, and you didn't do that " which completely distracts from any honest effort to fix the underlying problems.

And downvotes, once again, serve to prove my point.

It's interesting how the metatext works around here, isn't it?

Re: The dark side of .io

#63

Post by bbcbasic » Tue, Nov 11, 2014, 4:48 AM UTC

kijin wrote: post #59

thizzbuzz wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The right to occupy some specific geographic coordinates is not a human right. What? That's exactly what happened here. The Chagossians were forcibly removed, because a government(s) claimed "the right to occupy some specific geographic coordinates". If the Chagossians don't have that right, then no one else can come in and force them out.

Governments are not people. They neither have, nor claim, any human rights. The UK and USA only ever claimed a legal right within the framework of their own laws. Despicable as their actions may be, they never pretended to claim a human right . The displaced Chagossians, on the other hand, are claiming a human right to occupy the islands. That's different.

Aha.. so the Chagossians just needed a pen?

Re: The dark side of .io

#64

Post by bbcbasic » Tue, Nov 11, 2014, 4:51 AM UTC

kijin wrote: post #46

bbcbasic wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) the displaced people are adequately compensated for their loss The occupier always has bigger guns, more power, and no opposition from a third party. They don't need to compensate. 2) they are given freedom to move to a place where they can enjoy human rights and make an adequate living. Still a world full of refugees being smuggled into countries as illegal immigrant because what countries will accept them? The o…

> The only people who are moved and given (1) or (2) are ones that have a sufficiently good BATNA. Well said. So the question is: how do we build a world where residents of a small island can develop a sufficiently good BATNA, even against a nuclear superpower? Fixing problems at the level of the basic architecture can sometimes seem to go against fixing superficial symptoms. If you're too focused on the symptoms, it…

I am not sure, not easy when there are powerful people who have a vested interest in exactly the opposite.

Re: The dark side of .io

#65

Post by bbcbasic » Tue, Nov 11, 2014, 4:54 AM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #52

notastartup wrote: post #11

I picked up http://getleads.io for only $40, it was ridiculously easier than I thought because somehow I remembered .io domains as being expensive. Seems like the competition has brought down the prices quite a bit in the past few years.

$40 is expensive for a domain.

yes .bit is much cheaper!

Re: The dark side of .io

#66

Post by rustyfe » Tue, Nov 11, 2014, 5:01 AM UTC

geographomics wrote: post #37

jordanpg wrote: post #9

It is surreal reading this. The geographic connections between ccTLDs and their associated 2-letter pairs with their English connotations are completely arbitrary . ICANN could have just as easily decided to issue all 26*26 two-letter TLDs according to some other scheme.

It's not completely arbitrary, it's mostly based on ISO 3166 which is in turn derived from the names of countries. So on the contrary, it was a very deliberate assignment of two letter codes to territories. If the islanders had not been forcibly displaced in the 1960s, they would most probably have been had some say in the governance of .io, as other British overseas territories have done for their respective domains…

That isn't what he said was arbitrary though. The argument was that the pairing is arbitrary. So there's a justifiable reason why this island would have the .io TLD, but no justifiable reason why that is also an acronym for Input/Output. There's no particular reason .tv is Tuvalu and also Television. It just worked out that way and some acronyms are more valuable than others.

Re: The dark side of .io

#67

Post by sleepyhead » Tue, Nov 11, 2014, 5:07 AM UTC

russellbeattie wrote: post #18

Sooo... what? This is easily the third or fourth time this has been linked to in Hacker News. What relevance does it have to anything? Everyone who uses .io domains are horrible, insensitive people? Those who use .me domains should be forever ashamed of the various human rights violations of the Montenegrin government in 1995? Anyone who uses bit.ly is basically insulting the victims of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing? Et…

Let's put another perspective on this. If you are buying clothes produced by child labour then yes you are contributing to the continuance of child labour. "Sooo... what?" is a terrible ignorant view of your actions in this world.

Re: The dark side of .io

#68

Post by aaron695 » Tue, Nov 11, 2014, 5:07 AM UTC

mrfrisby wrote: post #30

This thread is a depressingly self-serving reflection of this community. Few of you seem to have bothered to do anything but skim the article and come to a snap judgement based on what seems to be your idealised notion of how TLDs should be managed. For the sake of my own sanity, lets just be clear here: 1. An island chain was forcibly depopulated in order for the largest land mass to be leased to the United States a…

> This is not about a TLD, it is about the abhorrent treatment of a small nation at the hands of a large one.

That's nice then re write the story without the link bait title designed to sucker HN users in.

It's a good story in it's own right but obviously people other than yourself don't appreciate being lied to and fooled.

Re: The dark side of .io

#69

Post by rustyfe » Tue, Nov 11, 2014, 5:09 AM UTC

bbcbasic wrote: post #63

kijin wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Governments are not people. They neither have, nor claim, any human rights. The UK and USA only ever claimed a legal right within the framework of their own laws. Despicable as their actions may be, they never pretended to claim a human right . The displaced Chagossians, on the other hand, are claiming a human right to occupy the islands. That's different.

Aha.. so the Chagossians just needed a pen?

And an army to back it up.

Might may not make right, but it certainly helps. Other states may have some moral obligation to step in to defend a human rights violation, but only the government of a state is expected to protect its legal rights.

Re: The dark side of .io

#70

Post by dingaling » Tue, Nov 11, 2014, 5:39 AM UTC

geographomics wrote: post #37

jordanpg wrote: post #9

It is surreal reading this. The geographic connections between ccTLDs and their associated 2-letter pairs with their English connotations are completely arbitrary . ICANN could have just as easily decided to issue all 26*26 two-letter TLDs according to some other scheme.

It's not completely arbitrary, it's mostly based on ISO 3166 which is in turn derived from the names of countries. So on the contrary, it was a very deliberate assignment of two letter codes to territories. If the islanders had not been forcibly displaced in the 1960s, they would most probably have been had some say in the governance of .io, as other British overseas territories have done for their respective domains…

> it's mostly based on ISO 3166 which is in turn derived from the names of countries.

The mostly is significant; in several cases the ISO was over-ridden and arbitrary but sensible codes assigned e.g. UK instead of GB. Many smaller territories were not granted codes in ISO3166 and had to be 'invented' for the TLDs

ISO3166 is in itself a bit of a mess, and since it became used for TLDs there have been dozens of requests for changes and additions based on new TLD assignments.