Slashdot Mirror
Domain Names to Suck More
A submitter writes: "MSNBC is running this article about a free speech lawyer who will be doling out sites with the word 'suck' in it for free. He and others are afraid that too many of these gripe sites have been taken away from their owners and given to the target companies and is willing to fight in court for these people." We posted about the VivendiUniversalSucks decision earlier.
"Really you think the KKK shou have the right to assemble?" Actually yes I do, for otherwise, a lot of people would have died in vain protecting this right they so often abuse. For the record, I ABHOR everything the KK stands for. I personally would be glad if they never existed. But, just because I disagree with their views, doesn't mean they don't have the right to do what they wish. (within the laws of course)
Sent from your iPad.
I don't know if you're a troll, trying to be funny or actually serious with this post but regardless of which I'm using it to respond with my own bit of my own constitutional rights. And I do not mean free speech.
First I'll let you know right off that in the spirit of America hating America is alright. Think about what this country would be like ( and many in this world are ) if you didn't have the right to express Anti-American ( politics, economy, foreign policy ) sentiment.
More importantly however is that I'm fully capable of being an American without being Christian. As I've so noticed especially with our God bless everything president we have right now what most people interpret Freedom of Religion to be freedom to choose your christian sect. Which admittadely is what our founding fathers meant when they wrote the constitution.
So if you actually were serious with your post and not a troll or just not funny, stick it in your ear.
I'm proud to be an American.
I'm proud to be atheist.
-TheRowk
You can change without improving, but you can't improve without changing. -Quote stolen from I don't remember who
I think we just need to formalize it, there is a definate need for the TLD ".sucks"
.sucks could rival the popularity of the .museum, .coop, .pro, and .aero TLDs recently approved by ICANN!
.sucks TLD becoming available, someone would register ICANN.sucks. That's why they will never approve it.
Surely you aren't suggesting that
My bet: Within 50ms of the
Obviously once he wins a few cases there will be precedent that should stop suck domains from being taken away. This isn't a workaround at all, unless you have a time machine and can travel back to the 90s and repair the damage there.
I can't spell or type, but that doesn't mean I'm unusually stupid.
The type of people who tend to register *sucks.com sites are generally not those who are interested in providing constructive criticism to a company in the hopes of improving it. No, they're the type who will be upset with that company no matter how much they've done to improve. (Otherwise, there could come a point where they'd have to say, "Yeah, X sucked three years ago, but they've improved a lot and don't suck anymore. We're shutting our site down." Who could see that happening?)
Don't get me wrong; I'm all in favor of allowing *sucks.com sites. But I don't pretend that they're any more objective than the company site itself.
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
The type of people who tend to register *sucks.com sites are generally not those who are interested in providing constructive criticism to a company in the hopes of improving it.
So what? Do I only get freedom to criticize a corp if it's constructive?
Reboot macht Frei.
Would it be OK for a company to buy up all the words in the English language so that you couldn't complain about them?
If I understand your meaning - and I apologise if I'm missunderstanding - this is just a silly fantasy hypothetical situation. A company can't buy words and then forbid you from using it to criticise them.
How can it be OK for them to buy up all the derogatory domain names, then?
Because unlike words domain names are a commodity that CAN be bought and sold. Turn the question on it's head - how can it be OK for someone (the government?) to STOP the company from buying the domain names it wants? Aren't the individuals who own the company afforded the same freedoms of speech and property that their detractors are?
Granted, you can still criticise them with a different domain name, but having a -sucks.com address does heighten your visibility.
This is actually a pet peeve of mine. The confusion over freedom of speech. You have the right to freedom of speech which you can use to criticize the company. You do not however have a RIGHT to a soapbox! You have every right to buy, rent or borrow a soapbox from whoever might be selling. But you do not have a right to compel them to sell or to speak on your behalf. You do not have a right to air time on TV or Radio, in print, or to any particular web domain you don't already own. The government choosing to deny your NEA grant, the paper refusing to print your editorial, the *sucks.com domain the company you hate already bought - none of these scenarios is an abridgement of your freedoms of speech or property!!
Besides even this is an unrealistic hypothetical. Any creativity at all will suggest domains the company never would have thought of. Apple could buy Applesucks.com (they didn't but they could have) but they would most likely have missed crapple.com. If someone want their own domain as a soapbox but can't think of ONE the company didn't think of... well, if that's the case they're probably better off with a geoshanties site anyway.