StackOverflow also planning to switch from GoDaddy due to SOPA concerns. | Hacker News Reader

StackOverflow also planning to switch from GoDaddy due to SOPA concerns.

meta.stackoverflow.com

598 pointsxatax78 comments

Perhaps off-topic, but after reading GoDaddy's letter, I am surprised that our discussions against SOPA don't focus on the root -- the fact that the legislation is presented in an incredibly misleading and vague manner.

At face value, its purpose is to stop the foreign counterfeit drug/goods sellers -- you know, the same guys who spam us with "enlarge your..." and such offers. The same guys who pollute Google search results with "buy handbags" trash. Now suppose someone had asked you: "do you want legislation against these foreign illegal drug sellers?" Surely you'd say yes. Heck, I'd say yes. What reasonable person would oppose this?

But the problem is that the legislation is presented as this, but is actually likely going to be used for other things (censoring online content, special interests of the movie industry, etc.)

So when we write to our congresspeople and explain our concerns with SOPA, I wonder: do they think "Hmm, I am just protecting the internet from so-and-so baddies selling drugs. Why are all these tech people suddenly up in arms about this? Do they somehow not want to stop those baddies?"

When we write, we say that we oppose SOPA. Would we be more effective if we asserted that we do hate those sellers and oppose SOPA because of its specific implications? Unless of course, the bad "side effects" are actually the main purpose and the "good" cause is just a very clever gimmick.

I don't think it's off-topic at all. What you are describing is how the topic is "framed", and is why companies pay large sums to lobbyists and PR firms.

> Now suppose someone had asked you: "do you want legislation against these foreign illegal drug sellers?" Surely you'd say yes. Heck, I'd say yes.

Let me stop you there. I'd say no, because I feel that in many matters, especially those concerning the Internet, legislation is about as effective as politely asking the rain not to drip through your leaky roof.

Even for the sake of argument assuming legislation is the right answer here:

The problem with SOPA is not so much what can be done to stop "bad guys", but how it can be done, namely without a court order, and only based on "reasonable belief".

It is massively chilling by virtue of causing large liabilities if someone don't act, even if/when they don't or even can't know for sure if the claim made is true, while granting immunity if they do act.

It creates a de facto assumption of guilt by creating a strong incentive to act without evidence of any wrongdoing.

I searched scholar.google.com for the word law and the quoted phrase "reasonable belief". The results were interesting to see, it seems "reasonable belief" has a lot to do with a lot of laws.

> Now suppose someone had asked you: "do you want legislation against these foreign illegal drug sellers?" Surely you'd say yes. Heck, I'd say yes. What reasonable person would oppose this?

I would. Not every nuisance should be outlawed, most nuisances probably shouldn't. Legislation always bears a cost, and, for instance, in this case the cost outweighs the benefits by a wide margin. As is often the case.

Precisely. While it is a cat-and-mouse game, I think the tech industry has shown that there is a vested interest in cleaning this crap out of our lives. The internet seems to be the last place where a market is free to tackle and solve problems on its own.

I have to think there is a huge financial worldwide cost associated with fighting what you characterize as a nuisance.

These sellers change domains each day. According to my host, they can even change servers several time per month. The process involved by SOPA, a judge decision to close the site will be absolutely inefficient against them.

I think the drug related part has more to do with the fact that you can buy drugs from other country, just like they've forbidden you even buy drugs from Canada online - even if they are good drugs. They just don't want you to use anything that isn't from an American company.

While some online drugs may actually be dangerous to people's health, and it's obviously risky unless you know what you're doing, I think education on this issue would be much more effective than legalizing banning of online stuff.

I mean, people with common sense should already know that they need to be careful what kind of drugs they buy online. I don't think the Government's intervention is mandatory even for that, and just like trying to ban most everything online, it will probably hurt more than help.

I cannot believe how many people are using the worst domain registrar in existence, even if you don't consider SOPA support. Out of all of the domain registrars, why GoDaddy?

Inertia. GoDaddy was great back when the other main option was Network Solutions. If you registered for multiple years, or simply forgot to transfer before the renewal period, it was easy to stay.

Not to mention that even many reasonably technically inclined people don't realize that you don't have to wait until your expiration date to transfer to another registrar.

Because it's cheap, popular, and most people don't interact with their domain registrar aside from registration and renewal.

Why do people buy clothes made in sweat shops or from chains that are terrible to it's employees? A lot of it just comes down to cost.

And even if you know how terrible something is (morally or ethically), some people aren't willing to change.

I don't think markbao was referring to their morality in his post, simply their terrible, terrible usability. I think also cost is not the reason, especially for the low numbers we're talking about. I would say people use GoDaddy because of GoDaddy's successful online and on air advertising campaigns.

"I think also cost is not the reason, especially for the low numbers we're talking about."

While I agree that their campaigns have been effective, I tend to disagree that cost isn't an issue. Heck, even I was informed of other registrars a few years back when I was first starting to host my own sites but GoDaddy was cheaper than my webhost for domain registration. Plus easy to find coupon codes also give additional value. Why bother paying an extra 5-10 dollars when, for most people, there isn't much difference after the initial registration? (I ask that rhetorically)

Name another registrar that is cheaper and comes with DNS?

eNom, Namecheap, like all of them?

This is something I never understood. I am not a sys-admin by any means, but I have never used a registrar, or host that does not have free DNS.

However, I have seen people pay for DNS hosting, separate from their registrar... which is odd to me.

Is this one of those things that was not available back in "good ol-days", so all the sys-admin thinks you have to worry about it separately?

Or is there some sort of benefit to having multiple DNS providers?

* Ability to set a low TTL (usually temporarily) if you need to servers quickly.

* Often better uptime and fast

* Easier to change registrars

* A central place to manage DNS if you end up with domains spread across many registrars

Ability to set SRV records, geographic dns, an API,... lots of reasons.

Why do people equate registrars with DNS? Wherever you're hosting your site is where you should be handling DNS.

That is not particularly rational. It makes moving hosting providers harder and many provide very different dns services. You might want an api or support for different record types that otherwise good hosting services dont provide. I use zerigo just for dns because they are really goid at it...

Managing DNS completely separately is fine, too. I just don't think it's a particularly good idea to use your registrar as your DNS provider unless you're also using it for hosting. I'd much rather point my registrar at my host's DNS than to have to update DNS records every time something changes on the host.

> have to update DNS records every time something changes on the host.

On the other hand, you might want to be able to do that rather than not be able to.

I'm thinking of the situation where your host goes down. If it is host-wide, your (their) DNS servers might be down too.

I intentionally use a different company for DNS than hosting, so if the host goes down I can point my DNS to somewhere else.

Every registrar that I have used in the last decade has come with free DNS. Why in the world do I need something cheaper than the ~$10 that most registrars charge?

Imagine a world where GoDaddy was the only major registrar not supporting SOPA.

Oh wait it's Christmas, not Halloween. Sorry.

hear, hear! Hard to believe StackExchange used them in the first place.

Actually, what surprises me is that SO would be registered with them in the first place.

It is registered way back in 2003. may be not many popular alternatives then.

StackOverflow didn't exist until 2008, so I doubt Jeff & Joel registered the name in 2003. When they bought it off whoever first registered it, they could have easily moved it to someone else. ServerFault.com (by which I mean the domain, not the site) has only existed since 2009. Clearly they had the option not to go with GoDaddy then as well, just as they did with all the other SX domains.

really? I'm the guy that suggested the name 'stackoverflow.com' to Jeff, and at the time I suggested it it was NOT registered.

see: http://jcooney.net/post/2010/08/26/Back-in-the-day-preferred...

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, LLC (http://www.godaddy.com) Domain Name: STACKOVERFLOW.COM Created on: 26-Dec-03 Expires on: 26-Dec-14 Last Updated on: 30-Nov-10

Though its possible that it was registered in 03, someone let it expire, and then it was up for grabs again. Im not 100% certain how the 'Created on' value works

Why did anyone ever use GoDaddy in the first place?

There are much better options out there. Dynadot, Moniker, Gandi, ... the list is endless.

Gandi locks my Chase credit card each time I pay them. Using (ugh) PayPal is the only way I can use them.

The only time American Express has called me has been twice on my Gandi payment. Makes you wonder about their fraud algorithms. Surely Amex can see I make the same payment every year, or maybe that is the mark of a patient and not greedy fraud.

FWIW I haven't had any troubles in the last few years.

My bank used to lock my Visa card every month when my landlord charged my rent. Same day every month, same company every month, same amount every month. Every 5th of the month I'd have to call my bank and confirm that the charges weren't fraudulent to get it unlocked, or I'd end up at a grocery store unable to pay my bill.

I put up with it because I was earning a ton of cash back having my rent charged to a rewards card.

I've thought about doing this but I think my landlord only takes a check.

How are you able to charge rent to a card? Did you sweet-talk the guy?

> How are you able to charge rent to a card? Did you sweet-talk the guy?

I was renting a townhome in a community owned by a large rental agency that did both residential and short-term business rentals, fully furnished homes at a higher rate. I'd guess accepting credit cards was more to cater to the business side, but they'd take them from any tenant that asked.

Most landlords won't because they'd lose 1-3% of the rent to the transaction fees.

The one time I had a credit card number stolen, Wells Fargo noticed the problem before I did. When I asked their fraud guy what the charges were that I didn't make he said they were a couple of domain name registrations.

Presumably attempting to register domains is something card thieves do to verify a stolen number actually works before they resell it or use it for "real" purchases... but why they use domain fees for this, I have no idea. Also, this was years ago, so one would assume that by now the card thieves have moved on to new methods that don't red flag so fast?

Interestingly enough, none of my own real domain registration fees has ever tripped up a card block and I've owned dozens of domains over the years.

They're buying a domain with free or cheap hosting to set up a phishing site to get more stolen cards or bank logins. By the time you notice and charge back the payment, they've already had time to spam that URL to a hundred thousand e-mails.

My bank is brutal about blocking my card on suspicion of fraud. Only in 11 years, there's never been a fraudulent transaction on that card.

While it very often happens when I try to place an order with companies I order from regularly, what seems to trigger them is not the transaction itself, but that it occurs near in time to another transaction, especially if I've ordered an online service from a company outside the UK (where I live)... Perhaps they didn't get the memo that the internet is international...

The only time I ever had a fraudulent transaction on my card, it wasn't stopped until they'd wiped out my account by gambling £1,900 of my money on Littlewoods Online. The bank never stopped my account, the criminals only stopped taking money when they'd emptied the account and run up an overdraft, at which point my card started declining. I only found out when I tried to buy a train ticket home and got 'card declined.'

I got the money back, but I was totally skint for a fortnight while the bank and police sorted it out. It was nothing to do with being overseas, either. My card got cloned at a well known Indian restaurant in Manchester.

Meanwhile, the same bank did stop my card for fraud prevention when I legitimately travelled to the US and used it there, myself, to buy a few bits and bobs in Target and get some cash out of an ATM, totalling all of about $70. I had to make an expensive mobile phone call back to them in Britain to tell them that yes, it's me. I don't think they get it sometimes.

They seem to do it solely by geography. UK good, overseas bad. Whereas if they had an iota of common sense, they would have been able to say "look, this guy's never spent a penny on gambling before, why has he suddenly spent his entire pay and overdraft on a betting website," and "look, he bought a plane ticket from American Airlines the other week, now he's using his card in the US, it's legit."

Surely there's some bright startup out there who could do this with data?

The overseas thing used to happen to me regularly too. I was traveling to San Francisco regularly for work, and after the first few trips I always made sure I had at least enough in USD on me to get to the hotel, and would always try my card first thing at the airport to get them to block it as soon as possible so I could call and get it unblocked right away.

It's gotten better - now they (Barclays) have an option in the online banking to explicitly inform them when going abroad to reduce the chance of a block. It still annoys me that I have to, but at least it's a lesser nuisance than a card block.

You'd think that after the 4th or 5th attempt, though, they would start to accept that a withdrawal of a small amount at the exact same ATM at SFO would be ok. But no.

Also, if they were to call me and check without blocking my card, I'd still be annoyed, but less so. That's what really annoys me - in no cases has there been a sudden flurry of rapid transactions, and so the risk of trying to get hold of me before blocking the card is rather small. Instead they block first and tries to call afterwards.

Another pet peeve is their security system. They call you, from a number you likely won't know is Barclays unless you take care to check the number and then save it on your phone. It's just begging for a social engineering attack by obtaining phone numbers and birth dates (the only authentication used), say from a fake online survey about banking with a price, coupled with reading up fake transactions, and proceed to put them through to an "operator" to help reverse the fake fraudulent charges, and then have the operator ask them to confirm the card details "for security", which the customers are conditioned to do when initiating the call themselves.

As much as it's more convenient, you'd think their fraud department would be more security conscious and ask you to find their number of the official website or something, but I guess that'd raise the number of complaints about their frequent blocks too much.

With many credit card issuers, you can simply call in advance to let them know you'll be traveling. Every time I pick up foreign currency at my bank (Royal Bank of Canada) they remind me to phone the credit card department and let them know when and where I'll be traveling to avoid any difficulties.

>That's what really annoys me - in no cases has there been a sudden flurry of rapid transactions, and so the risk of trying to get hold of me before blocking the card is rather small. Instead they block first and tries to call afterwards.

I'm not sure what the laws are in your home country, but in the US, banks have incentive to block first and ask questions later because they're legally on the hook for any fraudulent charges under federal law. Quite simply, they'd rather mildly irritate you than potentially lose money to a lost or stolen card.

I've had it happen twice with Mastercard in the last year or two.

In both cases I made a small purchase at a fast food restaurant, followed immediately by a large purchase. This was one of their triggers, which makes sense. Thief tests card, then immediately tries to max it out.

It nearly caused me a huge problem the first time since I was purchasing an engagement ring and they called my now fiancee regarding the transaction. Thankfully they didn't give any details but it still meant I had to lie about it all about which I was not pleased.

Why would you use a credit card company that locks yo right account, ever? Fraud is the merchant's problem, not yours. Fraud investigation is a courtesy you provide to merchant customers, so the CC company should never have any reason or lock your account without your permission, unless they have tried and failed to reach you for close to the fraud-liability time limit.

I've got a chase card, they used to lock it every time I'd buy bike parts from the UK. But they've been real good at keeping notes when I call them, and I haven't had a problem since. I use my chase card with Gandi too, and I would guess they lock you up because Gandi is a foreign co, and you're card doesn't see a whole lot of action in Paris. One call to chase telling them you expect to make more purchases from Gandi should fix it.

I also use GANDI since I could drop Network Solutions Inc. and never had any credit card problems with them.

> Why did anyone ever use GoDaddy in the first place?

Price ($1.xx .coms occasionally) pulls you in, inertia keeps you there. If all you do is use them as a registrar, you'll probably never have a problem, so no reason to reconsider. Plus, it's the biggest registrar, trust in numbers.

This is precisely the reason I stuck with GoDaddy for so long. My first domain was registered on 07-Sep-01 and, at the time, GoDaddy was the cheapest registrar I knew about/could find. I think this was even before they really started pushing their "edgy"/sexist advertisements.

Since then I haven't really had a compelling reason to leave, though earlier this year I decided to--as my domains expire--move to name.com. Of course as of today I initiated the transfer processes on the remaining 12 domains.

It's a win-win for me.

> probably never have a problem

https://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&pws=0&q=godaddy...

http://css-tricks.com/15377-this-sites-domain-is-stolen/

etc.

That had nothing to do with GoDaddy. GoDaddy was not the original registrar of all the domains that were stolen, and the thefts were possible due to a Gmail issue, not anything GoDaddy did.

Have you read the related articles? Everything points to someone hacking GoDaddy and transfering domains away. Would be a hell of a coincidence that all of them got their e-mail accounts hacked without any other consequences, and all coincidentally hosted at GoDaddy: http://www.instantshift.com/2011/12/08/why-the-instantshift-...

I rarely use Godaddy but I did recently. The reason was unlike name.com their website is not full of bugs. And unlike namecheap.com they take AMEX.

Really would have preferred not to use them but I did end up using their $1.18 coupon. So lets say I ended up abusing them.

I started moving away from GoDaddy recently. I'm sick of the up-selling when buying domains. I know it's how they make their money but I now use Hover and it is much quicker and simpler to purchase domains.

I was also getting tired of GoDaddy's constant domain management changes. Every time I go there they have a new UI. Again Hover is A LOT simpler.

I still haven't moved everything off but I am gradually doing it. And all my new domains are with Hover.

Wow...this is like hearing that Github plans to quit Dreamweaver because it was feuding with Adobe.

No it's not. Domain name registrars are a dime a dozen, people don't invest hours learning to use their panel, they also don't write "I know how to use GoDaddy" on a resume. As you can see, the switch from one to the next is trivial. People often procrastinate to do it because it's a bit of a pain, but it's simple enough that the motivation to do it is just one frustration away.

It just shows that if you're about to express your unpopular political opinions as a business, at the risk of pissing off a good chunk of your customer base, you should make sure your product is so damn good and unique, that people will be compelled to use it despite their contempt for you. But in this case, people just went nah, fuck godaddy!

I just want to make it clear that none of us at GitHub have any plans of dropping our usage of Dreamweaver.

This comment wins the internet for today. I wish it was at the top of the thread.

I recently started to point all name servers to Amazon Route 53. Clean and super easy to use now that it's available in the AWS Management Console. GoDaddy has been reduced to a registrar only, all DNS is managed from AWS now. And good riddance of GoDaddy's crappy Domain Manager UI.

GoDaddy just upped the publicity of SOPA a whole lot. I wonder will this shine a light on SOPA within the mainstream.

Did StackOverflow actually comment on when the switch would occur? I am sure they will post about it but I see a bunch of large companies saying "we will switch". I don't see a lot of companies saying "we have switched".

Proof or it didn't happen.

Ping whois over and over if you need proof... seems like an odd thing to assume they'd lie about.

WHOIS on stackoverflow right now shows its still with GoDaddy. I am not calling them liars but I do want to actually see them make the switch.

I want to see them apply logic and reason otherwise it might be difficult for me to continue to view them as a credible source of technical information. It will be interesting to see what choice they make.

GoDaddy changes their stance on SOPA.

I am not a fan of Godaddy.

However, it is clear that Godaddy thrives on being controversial. We are giving them their greatest wish.

Stackoverflow for president... Woah there is an idea.

wewe

ewfwef

Wow... SO is still with GoDaddy? GoDaddy's position on SOPA has been clear since October; what took them so long?

Where has this been made clear? They may have written their statements in October, but waited till today to publish it:

http://support.godaddy.com/godaddy/go-daddys-position-on-sop...

It's another sleazy move by GoDaddy (that wreaks of corruption) to wait till nearly the eve of the SOPA vote before making their stance and rationale public.

Another possibility is that they wrote it a couple of days ago and backdated it to October to try to make it look like less of a panic move.

Here's a link to an article mentioning that they announced support in October: http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2011/10/in-case-you-missed...

Since I'm being downvoted, I figured I'd provide some links to back up my claim that GoDaddy's position has been clear from the beginning:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111029/07003216560/go-dad...

http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2011/10/in-case-you-missed...

Anybody could have found these by doing a Google search.

Weed Wed Wed

Reply on news.ycombinator.com