Slashdot Mirror
Go Daddy Loses Over 21,000 Domains In One Day
First time accepted submitter expo53d writes "CNET reports that yesterday 21,054 domains were pulled off Domaincontrol.com, a subsidiary of GoDaddy. While this maybe a coincidence, it is likely to be caused by GoDaddy's controversial support for SOPA. It seems that GoDaddy's attempts at remedying the problem were of no use."
Government regulation of an industry increases the cost of entry for new competition. Established business will support something that gives them that kind of edge.
Voting with your wallets is much more effective then the fake choice presented in elections. Hopefully, people will finally realize that in today's world, it's the best way to start making a difference.
I can only hope that when more and more special interests begin to require that their support of some law mustn't be made public, the politicians taking the money stop for a second and think about what the hell they're doing.
BWHAHAA. As if! Man, sometimes I kill myself.
Carry on, corrupt entities.
What does "suprisingly" mean?
GoDaddy has NOT withdrawn its official congressional support for SOPA
That's great... Yesterday, I figured I'll just leave my 15 domains there since they backed off their support.. but apparently only in words.
The way I see it, GoDaddy should be happy people are leaving.. if you run a site that has any user content, SOPA will mean you'll have to shut it down anyway.
godaddy + sopa support = one less godaddy domain
sopa passes = one less godaddy domain
So they're getting what they want either way. They should be happy.
Someone needs to go and burn down the Capital building already.
Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
Yesterday, I figured I'll just leave my 15 domains there since they backed off their support.. but apparently only in words.
No offense, but this is an example of how gullible people can be and how easy it can be to manipulate them. Say some pretty words and people will continue mindlessly giving you money to erode their own freedoms with. I wish more people understood the ideas behind public relations and marketing. But let's go over it again: you can't trust what corporations say to you. They will always make statements that stand to gain them the most favor, whether the statements are true or not.
One has to actually use one's brain a little. Why would GoDaddy support SOPA, and then less than 24 hours later NOT support it? Do you think it's because they all changed their minds over there for some reason? Do you think they learned something new about SOPA they didn't know before? Or is it because they saw a pending backlash on the internet and wanted to release a bullshit statement that would satiate the docile among us? Do you really think they "backed off their support"? This is not difficult to figure out with a little bit of thought.
Someone needs to go and burn down the Capital building already.
I've been puzzled from the beginning as to why the OWS protesters aren't in front of the Capitol and the White House. They're the ones ultimately responsible for Wall Street corruption, because it necessarily requires a corrupt government in order to exist and grow.
For corruption to flourish in the private sector requires a corrupt government, for only with a corrupt government can the corrupt businesses and individuals be protected from the People and Justice.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
follow the money. isn't it always the way to understanding things, today?
For corporations, yes. For politicians, Yes. For religions, YES! Not necessarily for all individuals.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
I see that you're joking, but for the record, I bet you can find a registrar who will gladly take a transfer from GoDaddy for practically no charge.
If you are small company like GoDaddy, and not a complete asshat, this appears to be a pretty good opportunity to get a whole bunch of new customers.
You are welcome on my lawn.
That's kind of dumb. Do you think government is corrupting Wall Street, or is Wall Street's money corrupting government?
The whole thing is solved by a simple set of campaign finance rules. Publicly-funded campaigns. Take the money out of politics, and you'd be surprised how quickly things turn around. But as long as a very few people have all the power and money, they will be the ones in charge of government. When it takes $50 million to become a senator, and only corporations can donate really big money, guess what? corporations are going to have the power. The structure of our government is not corrupt. With sufficient will, every single elected office can change hands within 7 short years.
If there's a problem, look to your neighbors. Look to yourself. Somebody is electing these turds. As far as I can tell, there is only one US senator that doesn't take corporate money and he's a socialist. Maybe there are some congressmen who don't take corporate money, I don't know, but if there are, it's only a very few.
If OWS is going to focus on any government building, it should be the United States Supreme Court, that sold off the last shreds of good government with one decision. Maybe go directly to the homes of Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Kennedy, Roberts.
You are welcome on my lawn.
They will always make statements that stand to gain them the most favor, whether the statements are true or not.
You're close. Corporations say and do that which will gain them the most money. They exist solely for the purpose of returning value to their shareholders.
If currying favour with the general public will gain them money, then they will do that. However, if pissing off the 90% will help them mine hordes of cash from the pockets of the other 10%, they will gladly do so.
Corporations are not moral entities -- they are devoid of conscience. Even the individuals who comprise the corporation must give secondary consideration to moral issues where they conflict with the primary purpose of making money.
Corporations must never consider an individual's circumstances -- not customers', not employees' nor even individual shareholders' -- all are subject to the overwhelming need to maximize return on investment.
One might argue that the extreme compensation paid to corporate executives violates this, but in those cases is it usually the extreme greed of the individuals involved, coupled with extreme manipulative behaviour that have convinced shareholders that such compensation will maximize their own return on investment.
In such a context, only greedy psychopaths remain eligible to inherit the American dream.
Because the seat of power in the US is not in fact in Washington DC, but in corporate boardrooms.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
This is probably the most important thing you miss if you don't read the article. GoDaddy lost only about 1k domains.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Posting anonymously is supposed to protect someone from the repercussions of making a strong statement. No one should be heckled for speaking their honest beliefs behind that protective cloak. You just made the "if you aren't doing anything bad, you have nothing to hide" fallacy, which is disappointing. (Moreover, there's more to civilization than the length of one's work week. Stop waving your dick around. It gets you flamebait mods.)
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
I have a lot of other stuff to do (like my 100 hour work weeks) ...
You have a shitty job.
There are ~3.6 trillion reasons why this will not work.
Hint: as long as there are 532 people divvying up $3.6 trillion, there are going to be people willing to spend millions (or billions) to "influence" those 532 people for a piece of that $3.6 trillion pie.
Face it, spending a BILLION dollars to buy a couple percent of the Federal Budget is a bargain. And realistically, it doesn't cost anywhere near that much to buy Congresscritters.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
> Government regulation of an industry increases the cost of entry for new competition. Established business will support something that gives them that kind of edge.
I disagree. Government regulation is essential for Capitalism to work. This is not Anarchy.
Besides, that kind of regulation would increase costs not only for new entrants but also for the small fish; that is precisely what the big guys want. Everybody is noticing that the future will be less bright.
Someone recently said elsewhere the increased tax on tea helped to start the American Revolution and thus the root of the problem would be monetary. I don't think so, in my view people are tolerant up to a point and when a threshold is surpassed, people say "Enough!".
SOPA is like that IMHO and GoDaddy unwisely stepped on that threshold (again IMHO). Should SOPA be abandoned, I don't think people could stomach other similar initiatives.
Can greed beat anger? I'd say not -- or at least not forever.
Government regulation of an industry increases the cost of entry for new competition.
Except when the cost of entry goes down to zero because no one dares to compete with UNregulated monopolies and cartels.
BTW, if you have a recipe for getting corporate influence out of government without regulation (in a sense restricting the corporations' FREEEEEDOM), please do the world a favor and let us know. Otherwise, most of us are beyond tired of hearing simplistic aphorisms from the planet Rand.
Which party is acting as human shields to protect tax cuts for the rich at any cost and fighting a measly short-term payroll tax cut that will only benefit the non-rich?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Why disagree with the general point? Both can be true - regulation is necessary, and it does increase the cost of entry. It costs money, for example, to make sure that the beef that you're sending out isn't contaminated, but history shows that it's absolutely necessary - the invisible hand is also often blind, stupid, and arbitrary.
It's only idealogues who argue about either point. This is a false dichotomy.
BTW, if you have a recipe for getting corporate influence out of government without regulation (in a sense restricting the corporations' FREEEEEDOM), please do the world a favor and let us know.
When there is nothing for influence peddlers to sell, there will be no influence sold.
More simply: take the power away from government and people won't go looking for government to do things for them.
Ironically, TFA is about the market regulating bad actors, exactly what big-government supporters say the market can't/won't do.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I'm sorry, but "Regulation is necessary" seems false to me.
In a slightly longer view, it costs money to assume that you'll continue to have paying customers if you kill/ill them with faulty beef. I think the GoDaddy situation illustrates that.
Yes, and well, too bad for all the tainted-beef-eating dead people's families. They can, however, rest easy knowing that the ShitBeefCo will go out of business and its employees will be destitute as soon as ShitBeefCo's CEO's golden parachute inflates over the Caymans, where his bonuses for improving profitbility at SBC are protected from lawsuits.
See? The market corrected itself; it killed the stupid little people, and rewarded the superior Randian Overlords who worked so hard to get through an MBA program while playing rugby and fucking Muffy in the BMW convertible!
Thank god for the invisible hand pimp-slapping us all...again. Because the market will automagically correct itself...SUCKERS.
I have friends who tell me Randroids like you seem to be are sociopaths. I'm starting to think they're right.
Oh - and I just moved my domains off of GoDaddy AND I wrote to my congresscritters. Have you?