I'd be open to making exceptions in cases that are anti-regime.
Should I e-mail some photos of my bruises left by police batons on my ribs? Or maybe I should kneel?
This is humiliating, and you know it. You're just making more problems and creating more danger for absolutely innocent people, just in spite.
This is the essence of cancel culture, now on a national level.
We need to lose that term. It's not cancel culture to decide who you do and don't want to associate with, or do business with. That's freedom. The people being rejected only think their own freedom matters. Unless they are a protected class, that simply isn't true.
that tired misconception should be dropped. West can send any weapons to Ukraine, and volunteers from West, trained tank drivers and pilots, can drive those Abrams tanks and fly those F-16 planes. Russia and China has been doing "volunteer" trick just fine.
World needs to start to learn to deal with such situations. China/Taiwan is coming and total sanctions regime wouldn't be possible with China.
MORE direct combattants, _especially_ from other superpowers, is the last thing that we need. Adding additional powerderkegs to the existing fire does nothing to stop it.
As for Putin, he's basically a gopnik. There's a Russian word for what these guys do - "быковать", literally "bulling", but it's basically a display of aggression to establish oneself higher in the hierarchy and to make the victim afraid to fight back. If you acquiesce to gopnik's demands, he will come up with more, until the point where he "justifiably" takes away your phone and wallet.
Essentially yes. The current step is the equivalent of DEFCON 3.
I do get the idea of sanctions -- I'm legally prevented by publicly commenting on this due to some Russian law -- but I understand if a foreign business body has to terminate its business relations with a Russian one.
But kicking out paid customers just based on their nationality, knowing that they have no direct control over situation, and still blaming them for it? This is f**d up, I'm sorry.
Where do you get off reneging contracts and fleecing people of their money based solely on longitude and latitude and TLD?
> Namecheap expressly reserves the right to deny, cancel, terminate, suspend, lock, or modify access to (or control of) any account or any Services (including the right to cancel or transfer any domain name registration) for any reason (as determined by Namecheap in its sole and absolute discretion), including but not limited to the following: <SNIP MORE OF THE SAME>
from - https://www.namecheap.com/legal/universal/universal-tos/
Those terms of service documents that no one reads are part of, if not all the of the contract. Most service providers have the same (effectively anyway) clause in them. They also have clauses that allow them to modify their terms of service any way they want.
Unless someone has a different, specifically negotiated contract with the company that states otherwise - this is not a violation rightly or wrongly. This is why a lot of B2B involves contract negotiation that takes a long time, those businesses can't tolerate the instability of a contract that can be terminated or changed on a whim.
"You [Domain Name Registrant] shall not be subject to false advertising or deceptive practices by your Registrar or though any proxy or privacy services made available by your Registrar. This includes deceptive notices, hidden fees, and any practices that are illegal under the consumer protection law of your residence"
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/benefits-2013-09-16-en
IANAL, but I'm quite sure that failure to render services for payment counts as an illegal action under consumer protection laws in Russia and elsewhere.
>I don't think it is relevant to international boycotts, in letter or in spirit
Of course the First Amendment is relevant to international boycotts. How else would Namecheap half-assingly justifying its premature pullout? If they don't want to renew those domains after a year is up, I wouldn't have a problem, but that's not the case.
My issue is not Namecheap's boycott in and of itself, but the process of damning a host of individuals on the barest of relations to the Russian government while having the gall to take their money and run away.
I think this is conflating two issues that are altogether very different. In the first, Name cheap was pro section 230 protection, because without it they believed that they would have no choice but to censor people due to the potential for legal liabilities incurred without those protections. They were not advocating for the right of people to not be deplatformed due to their speech. And that isn't even what is happening here, namecheap is deciding to boycott Russia because of the actions of the Russian government, not the speech of the individual Russians. The first amendment in spirit is about protecting citizens from the state and absolutely does not mandate who you do business with and why. There are other laws for protected classes in the US but the whole issue of US law just seems absolutely disjointed in my mind.
> Of course the First Amendment is relevant to international boycotts. How else would Namecheap half-assingly justifying its premature pullout?
I don't follow at all, sorry. They make no reference to the first amendment, they simply believe it is not in their best interests to do business with Russian citizens at this time because of the actions of the Russian government. This kind of boycott strategy happens all the time.
To quote Namecheap:
"As citizens ourselves, we embrace the joy of hearing all voices. The power to regulate or restrict speech or expression concentrated in the hands of only a few big tech companies is not how we want those decisions made for us."
And what has it done today? It's nakedly hypocritical that Namecheap engages in those same restrictions against its own customers. If they just said "We're a business for free speech when said speech is convenient to our interests. Take it or leave it", that wouldn't be so much of an issue.
> the actions of the Russian government, not the speech of the individual Russians
> they simply believe it is not in their best interests to do business with Russian citizens at this time because of the actions of the Russian government. This kind of boycott strategy happens all the time.
Then why dissociate on the basis of TLDs of which many Americans may be domain holders? Or why is it that individual Russians citizens are having their websites taken down for the actions of their government? Namecheap is not being selective or proportionate.
I don't agree that closing up shop in a neighborhood after someone there threatens you with violence, is a free speech issue, even if the shop was selling posterboard and markers you could use for signs to exercise free speech.
> Then why dissociate on the basis of TLDs of which many Americans may be domain holders? Or why is it that individual Russians citizens are having their websites taken down for the actions of their government? Namecheap is not being selective or proportionate.
I agree this is fair criticism. I don't know enough about their business to know if there is a better way they could be selective.
The Russian government is not marching on Ukraine. There are no bureaucrats and politicians driving tanks. Russia's army is. And it's Russia's people who give power to the state to direct them. It would be absurd for an uncaring Russian individual to complain about essentially paltry financial or logistical issues as while being complicit in the erosion of Ukranian individuals' right to life.
Should US citizens have been cut off from registrar providers in 2003 because of the war in Iraq? Let's be consistent here. If you think that a state being an adversarial warmonger is the requirement to deny it's people a service they paid for, even the one's who never wanted a war, then every person on the planet is liable by proxy of their current or previous governments.
>While it's not the aim of this move, during every war, communications of the enemy are hindered.
By an army against another army, not a private organization against civilians. Namecheap is not a military or paramilitary organization. Namecheap is a private business, and is still subject to US laws as a private business. Hindering communications of an "enemy" isn't a justification for outright financial fraud.
>The First Amendment would never have been written if the authors valued the rights of British Soldiers as much as their own.
I'm not able to follow what this is supposed to mean. British soldiers at the direction of the Crown violated the rights of empire's own subjects under the Coercive Acts and initiated violence in Concord & Lexington. The soldiers made their bed. The Bill of Rights were not ratified until until 1791, well after the war.
>The Russian government is not marching on Ukraine. There are no bureaucrats and politicians driving tanks. Russia's army is.
Who's directing the army? Who's the one in control of those nuclear warheads being brought out. The civilians aren't the one's driving BMPs or flying MI-8s. Most if pressed, couldn't even point to Kyiv on a map. I don't know if you're either absolving Putin of his actions as though he doesn't have free will or claiming everyone in Russia is as guilty as he is for being Russian, but this is a terrible argument.
>And it's Russia's people who give power to the state to direct them.
This is a false premise. It's almost laughable. You're conflating American jurisprudence with the politics of the Kremlin. In case you haven't noticed, the Russian government is not a government by the people or for the people.
>It would be absurd for an uncaring Russian individual to complain about essentially paltry financial or logistical issues as while being complicit in the erosion of Ukranian individuals' right to life.
In short: "Ukrainians have it worse, so Russian civilians should accept what's doled out to them". If you can think there can only be one victim at any one time, then I've got news for you.
>This is a false premise. It's almost laughable. You're conflating American jurisprudence with the politics of the Kremlin. In case you haven't noticed, the Russian government is not a government by the people or for the people.
They have far more influence than the people of Ukraine.
>In short: "Ukrainians have it worse, so Russian civilians should accept what's doled out to them". If you can think there can only be one victim at any one time, then I've got news for you.
So Ukraine's people should not shoot back?
They’re terminating their contract, not reneging.
>verb
> go back on a promise, undertaking, or contract.
If you entered into an agreement to provide service (eg. provide domain registration for one year), and one side unilaterally terminates the relationship, that sounds pretty close to reneging. In addition, the CEO have promised refunds for some services, but not domain registrations. In that case you quite literally paid for one year of service, and are not getting that.
(Edited for clarity)
The best|worst situation here would be if NamecheapCEO would think this is how it should be. I would laugh my ass off on this hypocrisy.
I understand the arguments about individuals and how it could be a burden with all that's going on, but a private company? What's the argument?
I have many domains at Namecheap and I will not be able to afford transfer them out due to financial situation.
Is there any way I can still keep domains at Namecheap? Which cases are anti-regime?
Use a Russian registrar. Or leave Russia. This sucks. War sucks. But I don’t see how anyone can continue doing business in Russia while maintaining a clean conscience.
This is me, plain and simple. I would like to immigrate, but I have no legal grounds.
Serious question, no gimmicks or laughs: should I die or be cancelled by the rest of the world?
You should not die. But you don’t have an inaliable right to thrive in your country.
Again, not trying to be a dick. War sucks. I am truly sorry you’re hurting. And I am not suggesting it’s your duty to join a resistance movement or whatever. But these are considerations and costs we must all weigh when our governments do horrible things. Most of the time, sadly, the world won’t care. We (America) have war criminals who should be in jail. But occasionally, the world gets horrified and rises to the occasion. Even that occasional threat is better than nothing.
I agree, this is not enough. But this is by no means an excuse to cancel an entire nation.
This cannot be justified.
What bugs me is that they did not make a distinction between private individuals and corporations, if I were in their position I would have let the private individuals go, they are Russians, not Russia.
Even so: every Russian citizen and every Russian company that is currently relying on businesses in the West such as Amazon, Google, Microsoft and so on should expect those services to be cut off at some point in the near future.
The most disgustingly american thing ever said.
Now you are joining this effort on behalf of Putin. Good job, товарищ! Please report to Russian embassy to get your 30 silver pieces.