> "Go Daddy has always fought to preserve the intellectual property rights of third parties, and will continue to do so in the future," Jones said.
Translation: we got caught this time, but will not hesitate to do it again.
> "Go Daddy has always fought to preserve the intellectual property rights of third parties, and will continue to do so in the future," Jones said.
Translation: we got caught this time, but will not hesitate to do it again.
More translations that might make your day:
> In an effort to eliminate any confusion about its reversal on SOPA though, Jones has removed blog postings that had outlined areas of the bill Go Daddy did support.
Translation: we said some pretty stupid things yesterday.
> Go Daddy ... worked with federal lawmakers for months ... legislation first introduced some three years ago ... entire Internet community ... ensure the integrity of the Internet
Translation: we've been neck-deep in this legislation, and will be pushing the next version of this bill too. Seized domains would have been a de facto transfer to Go Daddy.
> Go Daddy has received some emails that appear to stem from the boycott prompt, but we have not seen any impact to our business. We understand there are many differing opinions on the SOPA regulations
Translation: Screw you guys, wait, what did you say Jimmy Wales?
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/12/godaddy-face...
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/12/godaddy-face...
http://movies.cosmicbooknews.com/content/michael-bentkover-w...
The man said it himself. They are not trustworthy.
Have to say I'm shocked at how many tech savvy people use them. Didn't realize how convincing Danica Patrick is I guess.
You can get away with that with beer ads because beer is basically entertainment. But domains are part of business, a core block. You need that to be reliable and serious. Doesn't mean your ads need to be po-faced, but it does mean that you have to exhibit some nod towards indicating you're a professional company. Nice tits are nice tits, but that doesn't make me confident in the technical nous - or perhaps more importantly, intended direction - of an internet company.
Somebody read 1984 and rooted for Big Brother.
I've heard of guys whose ex-girlfriends tore out and destroyed pages of their diaries related to the guy when they broke up.
People delete their half of conversations on forums, Facebook, etc. when they get proven wrong, so it looks like the other party was just talking to themselves.
Someone once asked me to help them remove someone from a photo (not a family photo, a documentary photo of a community activity). "Why?" "Because he was being annoying!" "But this photo could be printed in the paper. He was there. You can't just rewrite history like that!" "It's my photo! If you won't help me, I'll get someone else to do it."
Rewriting history is the norm. Most people haven't read 1984, and I suspect that many that do, don't get it.
I seriously doubt this is going to have much of an impact on them. So this one particular instance came back to bite them, good to know for them that pissing off techies is bad for business but animal rights people, devout christians and women ( all of whom have complained about various other parts of their business in the past ) don't have any impact on the companies actions.
But of course, you have to understand that it's part of the company's philosophy. This is the same CEO that came out in favor of waterboarding: http://www.metafilter.com/42906/Dear-Bob-Im-glad-youre-not-i...
the same CEO that goes elephant hunting: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/31/bob-parsons-godaddy...
supporting SOPA fits in line with that philosophy. The one thing waterboarding, elephant hunting, SOPA and their misogynistic ads have in common is the element of using force against those who are far weaker than you are.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aHe_9nH_Mc
my IQ dropped just looking for these. I can't wait for the end of this company.
Sexist? Furtherance of gender inequality? Perhaps as a side effect.
Sexual objectification? Definitely.
Isn't it obvious to everyone that they are still supporting SOPA, but realized that supporting it publically was a bad call?