featherverse

> Regulation, e.g. of utilities, in the in U.S. is sort of a form of nationalization.

That's the example I had in mind when writing my comment. The utilities WERE nationalized, however they were de-regulated in recent years, and the market has not really recovered from when they were handed government endorsed monopolies.

> You keep saying "not something that free societies do" as though that phrase in itself has meaning, but fail to explain why.

Uh... no offense intended, that's a failure of your comprehension abilities, and not my responsibility to satisfy. Your confusion amounts to "why is the sky blue?"

Because it's blue, Billy. Because it's blue.

This was inevitable, they made themselves the enemy of every single corrupt state.

That's the _worst_ idea I've heard this week.

First of all, "Nationalizing" corporations is not something that free societies do.

Second, the effect of this would be to further stifle competition from smaller businesses. Which is also not something that free societies do.

I question the motives of the author.

I question the reasoning for changing the 'title' of this submission. The article title which is what it was altered to match, is vague. The actual meat of the story is the action that Network Solutions took. The heading now is unclear, who shut it down? Was it the host? The registrar?

How does changing the title from a detailed summary to something vague and politically charged benefit the HN community or the dissemination of worthwhile information.

The original title was, approximately, "Network Solutions disables and parks the stormfront.org domain".

I find it discouraging that it's almost 2018 and this function of E-mail has not been made standard in all clients yet.

I understand the concerns about trust, but why not make trust the extra step for now, and make encryption the standard. And in time we can standardize trust as well. (I know it's pretty standard already but I'm thinking about 'the average user')

"Well I can't trust the source so why bother with encryption" is what we have presently, and that's just ridiculous.

Fair enough, I just think that people should look for their career by either finding ways to monetize activities which they already enjoy, or by looking for ways to create new kinds of value for the world. If you do those things, revenue often comes.

By contrast, every disgusting corrupt snake who has ruined the world for everyone else has started out with the goal of making X dollars in Y timeframe. So while I'm not saying they're all going to be evil, all of the evil ones share that trait.

> What do you mean, "it was always intended?"

I mean the internet is a new world which is only about 40 years old. It was created by a lot of really smart guys who mostly don't care about the "traditional market rules" and it was created a specific way to follow specific philosophies one of which is when a domain name is no longer being used it should be available for other people to purchase.

It's not exactly counter-culture, but it's completely different. The distributed infastructure, the emphasis on putting equal power in the hands of the smallest operators rather than focusing it on the largest corporations, none of these things mesh with how the offline world has been operating for centuries.

People who were aware of the internet before it was cool remember these details.

I don't know how to make it more clear for you than that.

> What specific ICANN policy has been violated?

I'm not going to dig through their books, I don't have the time and that's a job for lawyers. But I was around when ICANN was created and I know what their job is, and preventing these kinds of abuses by registrars is right at the top of their priority list.

> They are obligated to process a transfer at the request of the owner and new registrar, subject to certain timing and other rules. They are not, AFAICT, required to arrange such a transfer proactively.

That isn't what I meant. I only meant that if they were going to refuse to perform their duties as a registrar for one particular customer then they should provide that customer a means to switch registrars.

What they did instead is a kind of theft, regardless of how you feel about that particular customer. (not a fan, myself, as I've stated).

That's the exact same way that racists treat minorities. You should probably care about the details when you're damning people.

I think you're confusing Stormfront with The Daily Stormer, these are two different groups.

> How much extremist behavior would you tolerate before denouncing

In the United States, extremist groups have enjoyed the right to speak in public for decades and it almost never turns into violence. Violence is so rare at those rallies that it makes big news when it happens, such as we saw recently in Charlottesville.

We value our right to free speech so much that we tolerate people spouting hateful garbage, as long as speech is all they're doing. It's really a great sight to see the two sides shouting at each other in peace.

> I've always considered extremists as "canaries" --- you may not agree with any of their views, but their existence serves as a "buffer" of sorts

This is a really great analogy, it also shows when big brother is starting to over-reach it's authority.

> This was a bad decision by Network Solutions. If registrars start censoring everybody the ADL and the Southern Poverty Law Center don't like, they're going to run head-on into the Trump supporters. That won't end well.

I agree that it was a bad decision, however I think it's going to be revealed that the decision has more to do with the connections to violence that the forum apparently had, rather than the "speech" content.

Still, they (NS) are going to have to work really hard to convince people that they didn't just make a power grab.

ICANNs primary reason for existing is to "muscle" registrars. Their job is to enforce the rules.

You do own the domains you purchase, this is why there were court trials about trademarks. It's a question of property rights.

> If that were the case, letting it expire would result in it just being dead rather than available for others to register.

No, it was always intended that when someone no longer needs a domain name, it would be returned to the pool of available domain names for others to make use of. This is in the very spirit of the internet.

You aren't "re-up"ing. Domain names are not pre-paid cell phone plans.

Look at it this way. Until a domain is registered, nobody owns it. When you pay to register a domain, you aren't buying it on the registrar's behalf.

When you register a domain name you are purchasing that domain name for the duration of the registration period. You own it. Period.

The registrar's role is to handle certain technical functions such as providing PTR service, WHOIS records, and to expire the domain when the registration period expires. They don't own it, and the cost of registration is meant to cover their operating costs.

This is also why domains are so cheap. A .com is about $10 per year. That's basically nothing, when you compare to other things you pay for. If there weren't a recurring fee, people would never give up their unused domain names.

> You never own the domain. You register it for a period of time

No, that's not what's happening.

When you register a domain you are purchasing it. The fees you pay are to cover the operations of the registrar, who are providing a public service. It is also to allow people to pick up dropped domains that nobody is using anymore. This system was never intended to be abused the way it is being abused today.

Regardless of how the rules are presently defined, that would _never_ stand up in court. And I think it's a waste of time for us to squabble over nonsense that every rational thinking person knows is nonsense.

It's important to remember and consider the reason that registrars exist and the reason ICANN was created. All of these things are meant to protect the sanity of internet operations, not to contribute to their corruption and breakdown.

I am no fan of stormfront.org or any other racist organization, but this is not acceptable.

When a person registers a domain name, they become the owners of that domain name. It does not belong to the registrar they hired to procure it, and they are not "leasing" the name from the registrar. A lease would suggest that the registrar owned the domain name prior to registration, which is not the case. And if you extrapolate, it suggests that some entity owns all unclaimed domain names de-facto, which is also not the case.

When you purchase a domain name, that does not award the registrar the status of "Actual Owner" of that domain. They are providing a technical service, nothing more.

ICANN should probably get involved and punish Network Solutions for this action.

Network Solutions might be within their rights to choose to no longer 'host' the domain name themselves, but in that case they must be obligated to arrange for a transfer to a different registrar. What they are not allowed to do is simply steal the domain name from it's actual owner because they disagree with the content of the owner's website, thus preventing a transfer.

It is important that we do not allow corporations to steal control or property from the open internet by using these politically charged circumstances as their theater of operation.

This response will be lengthy, it's a complicated subject.

I disagree. Most banner ads are through some sort of service like AdSense. They don't fit the theme of the page they're on most of the time which harms the immersive experience for the end user.

People care about these details. AdBlockers are increasing in popularity every year and there are reasons for that, you can't simply disregard this fact.

There are rare sites where ads are less hated, a good example might be Penny Arcade where the ads are hand-picked by the site owners for their specific appeal to their targeted audience. Those kinds of ads are probably the least hated.

I've had this conversation dozens of times, and people are constantly insisting that advertising is going to live forever! But that's nonsense. People hate ads. Even the least intrusive ads, they hate them on principal because their lives have been ruled by ads for decades. And films like Minority Report have painted horrifying visions of the future where advertising has taken over everything. The savvy among us can see that "big data" trends are heading in that direction, and that isn't a future anyone wants. Except people who work in advertising.

What I am curious about is why people cling so desperately to this revenue model. Obviously those who rely on it for their bread and butter are going to wish it would live forever, but the other 90% of the population would realize a much better quality of life if advertisements were to die forever. Just imagine it.

The internet and digital technology is changing the world. Advertising is going to die. It's an exciting thing to bear witness to.

That's a really great idea! Thanks for the tip.

I've thought about doing this myself. I don't have quite that level of revenue yet however. I was thinking of traveling the country and visiting various sci-fi conventions, living out of the discounted hotel rooms that often accompany such events, and spending my copious free time enjoying the entertainment of con-life.

Travel is a pain tho. Especially if you have pets. I've got a cat who hates traveling, and we are best friends, so it wouldn't be right to leave him alone constantly. Ah well.

I think it's a two step process. First, install SuiteCRM, second, replace all those salesforce plugins with a single SuiteCRM developer who can craft custom plugins.

This has the added benefit that you can then sell those SuiteCRM plugins to other businesses.

Curious. About 1 week ago I saw a post on reddit that asked "What product would you pay $20,000 for?" I thought that was odd, typically that's not how you plan a business, you find something or create something of value and then you sell it. You don't start from how much you want to earn and then look for ways to earn that much.

Now here's a similar post, what would you pay "$10,000/yr" for.

You can label me a skeptic, but I wouldn't buy anything from anyone who's primary motivation for starting their business is to make X amount of dollars in Y timeframe.

Let me be the first to say this is probably a terrible idea.

Some reasons:

1. Decentralized storage? What the hell for?

2. Blockchain hype anyone?

3. "Where only you have access to your data" It's called NextCloud, or OwnCloud. This app should be called WheelReinvented.

According to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_mail_servers

qmail doesn't support SMTP over TLS or SSL. How is that "secure"?

> people don't block ads because they can't stand the site of them.

Oh yeah? Where do you get your research from?

I guarantee people are blocking ads because they hate ads and everything else is secondary.

You want some proof? TIVO sold millions of devices because of the ability to skip ads. People hate ads.

I'm a business owner and I rely on advertising, and I would still ruin advertising.

1. Advertising gives advantages to the largest richest corporations and stifles competition from superior small businesses.

2. It makes people stupid, they don't take the time to investigate products before buying, because they are literally brainwashed from hearing the same bullshit every day from advertisers.

3. It wastes our time. It is 2017, it is the information era, if you want a product you open a web search and look for it. Advertising is no longer necessary or relevant, and it is stealing moments from people.

There are more reasons.

Advertising is already dead, and if your business operates solely on advertising then your business is in real trouble. I started telling people this a year ago and they laughed at me. Get off that flaming wreck now while you still can, or sink and burn with the rest of them. The smart people are already looking for new revenue models. Adapting to new conditions is a critical part of survival skills, and if you can't do it you won't survive.