Imgur.com: Why We Dumped GoDaddy

Yea, well... by Black+Parrot · 2011-12-28 22:11 · Score: 5, Funny

GoDaddy.com originally supported the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) but quickly recanted its position when the call of a boycott circulated.

Nothing like money-at-stake to reveal whether someone has a spine.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade

Re:Yea, well... by Arancaytar · 2011-12-28 22:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

Better spinelessly stop supporting evil than courageously continuing to support it, though. Boycott worked exactly as intended, that's great news.
Re:Yea, well... by Spad · 2011-12-28 23:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is the problem with assigning anthropomorphic characteristics to companies; in the context of people, I would rather that someone have the strength of conviction to make and stick with the choice that they believe is right, rather than flip back and forth to fit the prevailing opinion (subject to the original decision having been made with all the facts).
With companies though, it's really not possible for them to ignore things like this because of the likely impact on their business, so while GoDaddy are just shamelessly pretending to drop support for SOPA to vainly try and appease The Internet, they don't really have a choice. Of course, they could have made the right choice in the first place, but they're dicks, so that wasn't going to happen.
Either way, their initial support for SOPA and helping to write it to get themselves immunity from its provisions mean that regardless of their recent actions, there's no way I'd ever give them my business now.
Re:Yea, well... by rtfa-troll · 2011-12-28 23:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

Boycott worked exactly as intended....
It's astounding how long a meme can keep going. Go Daddy has not changed it's view; it has not changed it's actions; it has just removed a couple of press releases about those actions and started to support SOPA behind the scenes. If Go Daddy had changed their viewpoint, and actually was opposed to SOPA now, then we should stop the boycott and concentrate on others who are worse. However, this is not a decision we need to make. Even as I post today Go Daddy's "general counsel and corporate secretary" has a blog posting up which clearly states her opinion in support of SOPA and is undersigned in her official role.
If Christine is acting against company policy then Go Daddy needs to be disciplining her now. Lets be clear; not because of what she believes, but because she has a representative role for the company, is directly opposing and contradicting company policy and is doing so using the name of Go Daddy to get publicity for that role. Also because she was involved in drafting SOPA and should take responsibility for the mess that it is which is a clear and visible failure to work in Go Daddy's customers interests.
If Go Daddy is still employing her without disciplinary action, and that blog posting is still up then Go Daddy is effectively supporting SOPA and should continue to be boycotted.

--
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Re:Yea, well... by Decameron81 · 2011-12-29 00:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

...I would rather that someone have the strength of conviction to make and stick with the choice that they believe is right, rather than flip back and forth to fit the prevailing opinion...
In this particular case, I do agree that GoDaddy has no merit in their change of mind - because they are acting consistently bad with their customers, and don't really seem to have changed their mind at all.

But it seems to me as if in our society we preferred that people stick to their decisions, rather than change their mind if there's overwhelming evidence that they've been wrong. Does it make sense?

Recognizing mistakes and dealing properly with them is IMHO a very rare and positive trait, which should always be encouraged. Think of how much better things would be if this was more widely encouraged.

--
diegoT
Re:Yea, well... by jellomizer · 2011-12-29 01:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

People make mistakes (a company is a collection of people). For some odd reason our culture has become one that wants blood for every mistake. We hear about a security breach or data loss at Google or Amazon and we go "Well someone is going to get fired!" Why should someone get fired for making a mistake that anyone might have done. Was the person who pushed the button the did the work take all the blame, or should the whole organization be at blame because it was too easy to do that with a push of a button. I remembered early in my career I was cleaning out some temp files that emacs makes "ends with ~", I had a bunch of them so i did an rm -f * ~ vs an rm -f *~ So I ended up clearing out my project then continued onto my home directory. I felt bad I lost all my work, I didn't get fired my Boss asked about backup, I only had some a week ago. so had to work harder to get caught up, and in a few days I was back. But now I became very careful when using the rm -f command. People make mistakes and learn from them. If we need to punish people extra for mistakes people will not learn from them they will just be hostile to the organization that makes it easy to make mistakes and then severely punished for doing such.

GoDaddy wants a reputation as a reputable DNS register. They probably supported SOPA so their name will not be targets as a friend to people/organization who perform software piracy. Then people started protesting it and pointing out how the rules are too strict and can hurt the good guy, so they changed their position.

Software Piracy is a bad thing. If you believe that software should be free then go out and support GNU and other Free software projects. But pirating closed software and state you are morally right to do so, would also mean the people could violate the GPL and other Open Source Licenses using the same moral standards. However we are having a hard time coming up with a legal/technical solution to the problem with software Piracy that doesn't dramatically hurt the honest customers as well.

So if they Didn't Approve SOPA they could have been seen as a harbor for software pirates (That gives them a bad name, and making new customers worry about choosing them).
If they Approved SOPA they would would be branded to be against the small internet company who wants to make the next new thing (Pissing off their key customers)
If they took no position then they would be considered apathetic to the goings on in the internet world. (That would mean that if a regulation passed they may not be in compliance and thus go out of business, so customers will avoid them)
Or they swap position depending what they feel is public opinion (Then you get what happens now)

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re:Yea, well... by smpoole7 · 2011-12-29 01:53 · Score: 2

Right. I'm no fan of GoDaddy, and I think SOPA is one of the worst pieces of legislation to come along in a while. But here's the problem: if someone is doing "wrong," and then changes their mind -- even if that change of mind is obviously grudging and insincere -- how are we supposed to respond?
As an analogy, a million years ago when I working in customer service (consumer electronics), my manager told me something I've never forgotten. The customer who calls to complain, and who says, "I've always used you in the past, but I'm disappointed and I hope you'll make this right," got whatever we could give them. We bent over backwards to make them happy, up to and including giving them a replacement for their original purchase.
BUT ... the customer who calls, threatening, and who says, "I'll never buy your junk again and if you don't refund my money I'll write [insert name of authority or media outlet] and [insert random legal threat], you bunch of [insert random profanity] .. .. " we would do precisely what we had to, and no more.
(Yes, we considered the fact that the poor customer was upset, and that maybe we could "win them back," but once it became obvious that the customer couldn't be satisfied no matter what we did, we stopped trying, too.)
Like I said, I'm not a fan of GoDaddy. Not at all. But continuing to punish them after they've backed off of an unpopular decision may not be the best course of action.
Just my opinion, and you know what those are worth. (Precisely what you pay for them.) :)

--
Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
Re:Yea, well... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-29 02:09 · Score: 3, Informative

When the court seized domains last year, it was Go Daddy that became the new registrar and hosted the "This domain has been seized..." page for ICE. They are opportunists who have been caught with their pants down on the wrong side of an issue whose importance to their client base they did not foresee.
But then, if they had any sense of ethics in the first place, they would have known what they were doing was wrong.
Re:Yea, well... by shentino · 2011-12-29 02:13 · Score: 5, Informative

They didn't change their position.
Re:Yea, well... by drinkypoo · 2011-12-29 02:15 · Score: 2

GoDaddy.com originally supported the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) but quickly recanted its position when the call of a boycott circulated.
Nothing like money-at-stake to reveal whether someone has a spine.
It has been revealed that GoDaddy has NOT withdrawn its official congressional support for SOPA.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Yea, well... by bzipitidoo · 2011-12-29 02:30 · Score: 2

Wow, what a hackneyed piece of garbage that blog post is. Just the first paragraph is loaded:

aimed at protecting the intellectual property of hard-working Americans, U.S. business and the American public from the harm that necessarily flows from the purchase of counterfeit products.
Crammed into this phrase, we have that vague and presumptuous term "intellectual property", the implication that it is in danger with those words "protecting" and "harm", and that it is something virtuous and precious and essential to our national character with such bits as "hard-working Americans" and "American public". And finally, because "intellectual property" isn't broad enough already, she mentions "counterfeit products". How can people twist their brains around this trash? Does she actually believe what she wrote?
Later, there's even a "think of the children" appeal! Yes, yes, Jerry Sandusky thought of the children too.

--
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Re:Yea, well... by capedgirardeau · 2011-12-29 02:57 · Score: 2

I definitely understand what you are saying, however I have two points:
1. What seems like continued action against them is really just 1 action against them. This is just how long it takes and what it looks like. They are going to lose customers and have their reputation trashed over this bad decision, it just doesn't happen all in one day. The boycott and moving of domains is just one event, it just happens to take a few months for it to play out.
2. This sets a precedent and acts as an example to other companies. Making poor, anti consumer, anti freedom type decisions that don't take your customers into account hurts. A lot. And it will continue to hurt for as long as the people you dumped on can make it hurt. Other companies should pay heed to what this incident can teach them. They should seriously consider their customers points of view if they are thinking of taking big public stands on issues.
My domains are moving as soon as I figure out a good place to move them to, that is the only reason it hasn't happened yet.

--
Wax on, wax off baby!
Re:Yea, well... by Esion+Modnar · 2011-12-29 02:59 · Score: 2

I think I know where GoDaddy would stand with regards to a hypothetical extraterrestrial invasion. They'd be first in line to make a deal for themselves, while selling out the rest of Humanity.

--

They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
Re:Yea, well... by jellomizer · 2011-12-29 03:46 · Score: 2

Accountability. Is making sure the person who did push the button is actively involved to fix the problem. Accountability is also making sure the organization doesn't make the same mistake again.
When people are afraid to make mistakes they are also afraid to exceed.

Now if this employee has a history of making mistakes and being reckless then yes he should get canned. But for most people there are there to do a good job and if they mess up they are feeling really bad about it.

If you have 12 million dollars of activity tied to one person who can cause it to die with a few keystrokes, then the organization has a problem. If the problem is a situation where anyone could have made the mistake, then the accountability is on the organization because it is a matter of time before someone makes a mistake.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re:Yea, well... by Alsee · 2011-12-29 04:02 · Score: 5, Informative

continuing to punish them after they've backed off of an unpopular decision
Did you even read their press release? They have not backed off on SOPA. The press release starts out stating that they consider the issue of the "utmost importance" and that they intend to continue "working to help" on the language of SOPA in some unspecified manner, and then astoundingly proceeds to declare "It's very important that all Internet stakeholders work together on [SOPA]". GoDaddy actually has the psychotic GALL to tell us how important it is that WE support this turd.
GoDaddy absolutely did not get the message here. The only message they got is that they are losing $$$.
GoDaddy has only temporarily withdrawn their public endorsement of the law. The press release states they feel SOPA is "worth the wait" and "Go Daddy will support it when and if the Internet community supports it". GoDaddy still fully desires and intends to support SOPA in the future. GoDaddy expects US to get a clue and reverse our position to support it as soon as possible.
They haven't changed their position in the slightest. All they have backed away from is the shitstorm over their pro-SOPA press release. They are merely trying to use the new press release as an umbrella to hide under while they continue "working to help" on SOPA.
-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Re:Yea, well... by Black+Parrot · 2011-12-29 04:31 · Score: 3, Funny

It's like walking in on your best friend banging your wife, he looks up and says, "sorry, dude. I'm almost finished." then continues until done.
In an old shaggy-dog joke, King Arthur goes on a long rant at the queen for her lack of fidelity, and then says:
"And as for you, Sir Lancelot, the least you could do is stop while I'm talking."

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:Yea, well... by Alsee · 2011-12-29 04:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

if someone is doing "wrong," and then changes their mind
GoDaddy didn't change their mind in the slightest.

if that change of mind is obviously [] insincere -- how are we supposed to respond?
The fact that they supported SOPA in the first place was bad, but forgivable.
Getting kicked in the nuts for it and still failing to Get A Clue, is even worse. It's generally rather unwise to forgive someone who is too stupid and stubborn to learn from their mistakes. But at least there would be some shred of respectability that they thought they were doing the right thing and being honest that they still think so.
However their obviously insincere response is unforgivable. They issued a threadbare and dishonest press release that they were withdrawing support in the hope that we would be gullible enough to be fooled by it while they continue "working to help" on SOPA. They feel SOPA is "worth the wait" and they intend "Go Daddy will support it" in the future.
Seriously, how do you respond when someone makes an insincere apology to pacify you, and they do it with the full intention to continue the behavior? Do you stand there saying "Thankyou for your apology, please continue kicking me in the nuts from behind my back."?
-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Re:Yea, well... by TubeSteak · 2011-12-29 05:22 · Score: 2

, and then astoundingly proceeds to declare "It's very important that all Internet stakeholders work together on [SOPA]".

What a laugh.
Congress rarely invites consumer protection groups to the table when they're thinking of fucking the public with a law written by lobbyists.
And Congress never invites [strike]citizens[/strike] consumers (we're "internet stakeholders" too!) into the conversation.
The last straw is that when shitty laws like this one are proposed, they never die, even in the face of massive public backlash.
The law just goes into submarine mode and waits for another opportunity to pop up and be voted on.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Re:Yea, well... by _0xd0ad · 2011-12-29 06:36 · Score: 2

No. That's exactly wrong.
What you should draw from it is that your first "gut feeling" is usually right and you should stick with it, but humans are really bad at taking new information and appropriately adjusting their original gut feeling based on the new information. But if you have all the information from the get-go, your gut feeling is probably correct. It's only if you get new information that you need to be careful to objectively consider all of the information, and don't let your gut feeling (which was based on incomplete information) taint your final decision.
The Monty Hall problem tricks people by making them feel lucky. They know their "gut feeling" only had a 1-in-3 chance of being correct, but after you reinforce the notion that their original choice "wasn't wrong" (since they didn't lose yet), they're inclined to trust their luck further.
If you told someone to pick 1 door, and then told them "now, you get to choose: either what's behind the door you picked, or what's behind both the doors you didn't pick", obviously everyone's gut feeling would be to switch. They just don't realize that that's what the Monty Hall problem essentially does. Their gut feeling was correct, it's only that they processed the additional information incorrectly.
Re:Yea, well... by ppanon · 2011-12-29 07:52 · Score: 2

The option is there for a reason. Your reaction is like that of the person who cuts themselves by accident with a kitchen knife and resorts to buying all kinds of gadgets to protect their fingers instead of learning proper technique. The lesson you should learn isn't to never use -Rf or * with rm, it's that when you use one of those features you should double check everything you've typed before pressing the enter key. Measure twice, cut once works for more than carpentry.

--
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
Re:Yea, well... by Grishnakh · 2011-12-29 13:48 · Score: 2

Liberals detest him almost as much as right-wing radio talkshow hosts do.
I haven't seen much of this. Instead, most liberal-leaning sites/blogs seem to be 100% behind him, and people that aren't are treated like pariahs.
This guy (a self-proclaimed leftwinger) even has a couple websites bashing liberals for their backing of Obama:
http://americanextremists.thecomicseries.com/
So yes, there's a small core of liberals that do detest him, but most of them seem to have completely changed their opinions on everything so they don't have to admit to themselves they were wrong. I think this is called "cognitive dissonance". The real test will be the Democratic Primaries: if Obama gets re-nominated, then that'll prove that the Democratic voters really are this stupid. If they kick him out and nominate someone who isn't a clone of GWB, then it'll disprove it. If I were betting, I'd bet that Obama will get the nomination. There've been four times in history when a sitting US President did not get the nomination of his party for the second term, but those were all back in the days when voters weren't quite as stupid as they are now.

Let me be the first to say by Fluffeh · 2011-12-28 22:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

Que seneveratis metes.

Or some such thing. My schools motto was that. What you sow, So shall you reap. One of those wonderful things that I recall as a kid I didn't think too much of. These days, can't be closer to home. GoDaddy, you fucked up. You got caught with your fingers in the cookie jar. All the advertisements on Australian TV won't help you enough. You have angered the internet. To you, we are anonymous. But we are not. We have domain names. We have money that you need. We have integrity. We have choices. You chose SOPA.

We choose someone else.

--
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!

Re:Let me be the first to say by mgblst · 2011-12-28 23:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

You're so right. This one web address moving, imgur.com, is going to cost Godaddy millions, if not billions or karma. Or about $10.
This will change nothing, Godaddy have already started lying about changing it's stance, when it has not.
Re:Let me be the first to say by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-29 00:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

Do you not understand how publicity works? As this dump GoDaddy meme gets more and more visibility, more and more people make the choice of participating. The number of domains imgur uses is totally irrelevant.
This is one of the few case where a boycott actually works:
* monetary cost to protester is negligible
* amount of work needed is very small (neet to renew anyway)
* GoDaddy isn't that good anyway so moving usually has no negative side effects
At the moment GoDaddy really hopes this news coverage would go away. Every article shows on their bottom line.
Re:Let me be the first to say by thegarbz · 2011-12-29 03:22 · Score: 2

Really? You probably just haven't noticed. When I type imgur in my browser bar the following come up:
A picture of a really early version of Android - Typically posted in every Slashdot story about Android by some Apple public opinion correctional officer.
A screen cap of a twitter comment between IGN and Oceanic Marketing - Got that from the Slashdot story only yesterday about Oceanic Marketing's braindead customer service.
And about a million photos of various lolcats.
Imgur is the defacto standard service for linking some stupid image to someone.

Are we still talking about GoDaddy? by hcs_$reboot · 2011-12-28 22:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yes. And I don't mind having a reminder every other day.
This is not just about SOPA...

--
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...

Scr*w Godaddy by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-28 22:22 · Score: 5, Interesting

I had all my domains in Godaddy but I was fed up with trying to find the hidden option to manage my domains in pages and pages of advertisements.

It seemed to me that, if I paid for a service, I don't want to be bombarded by ads every time I need to use this service.

I moved to Namecheap and never looked back.

Re:Scr*w Godaddy by Tvingo · 2011-12-29 00:44 · Score: 2

I had all my domains in Godaddy but I was fed up with trying to find the hidden option to manage my domains in pages and pages of advertisements.
It seemed to me that, if I paid for a service, I don't want to be bombarded by ads every time I need to use this service.
I moved to Namecheap and never looked back.
Completely agree. The webpage is a absolute mess at GoDaddy. You would think that a company that is 'selling' the internet and setting up webpages would set a good example. I moved all my domains to Namecheap yesterday as well. Figured if I waited till today they may be too swamped ;) Hopefully Godaddy takes it in the purse for supporting this attack on our freedom.

--
Nothing i have to say is worth saying.
Re:Scr*w Godaddy by na1led · 2011-12-29 01:03 · Score: 2

I was thinking of hosting a website with Go Daddy, I decided to go with IXWebHosting instead. I wonder how much business they are losing? It's not like they get lots of ignorant people who know nothing about whats going on.

--
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.

Left GoDaddy Years Ago by handsup · 2011-12-28 22:24 · Score: 4, Interesting

This is not the first time GoDaddy is exposed. I remember transferring my domains from them years ago due to some other Bad Thing they did.

It surprises me that they still are used by many high-profile sites who are now only transferring.

Re:Left GoDaddy Years Ago by Elbereth · 2011-12-28 22:53 · Score: 5, Funny

It's human nature. If someone screws over a customer, a few outraged people will leave, but many others will stay, because the company never did anything to them. A couple on the sidelines will be wondering, "What the fuck is wrong with you? Right from the start, I could tell that company was slimy." And someone, somewhere will say, "It was his/her own fault for getting screwed. The company was perfectly justified in doing what it did. They're not a charity."
As a smug asshole who loves to be right, this whole drama has been very fun. Not that I need the validation of the entire fucking internet coming around to my opinion or anything, but it's still nifty.
Re:Left GoDaddy Years Ago by David+Gerard · 2011-12-28 23:16 · Score: 5, Interesting

> It surprises me that they still are used by many high-profile sites who are now only transferring.
The Wikimedia one was like:
"WIKIPEDIA! WHY YOU USE GODADDY?!?!!"
"... We do?"
It's plumbing. No-one thinks about it. Until it turns out their plumber is HITLER. [citation needed]

--
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Re:Left GoDaddy Years Ago by elrous0 · 2011-12-29 03:19 · Score: 2

There was a time when I would recommend GoDaddy as a host to my smaller clients. But their incredibly sleazy ad campaigns (that look more like ads for "Girls Gone Wild" videos than for a web hosting company) started to become so embarrassing that I stopped recommending them. I couldn't very well recommend them to a serious client only have that client catch one of their Hooters/strip-club ads during the Super Bowl.

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.

Re:Who dumped whom? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-28 22:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

Quite possibly, yes

Wikipedia also left GoDaddy by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-28 22:45 · Score: 5, Informative

Just so you know. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=467377954/)

Re:Wikipedia also left GoDaddy by jampola · 2011-12-28 23:46 · Score: 2

This, is news. This is REAL news and THIS is what should be on the front page of /.

Anonymous Coward, thank you for what I think is the most informative link i've seen all day!

Re:Who dumped whom? by CharlyFoxtrot · 2011-12-28 22:50 · Score: 4, Informative

Imgur was created for, and thus heavily used by a little site called Reddit. Godaddy is the McDonalds of domain registration.

--
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.

But.. by andrewa · 2011-12-28 22:56 · Score: 5, Funny

Boobies!
http://www.joyoftech.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/1633.html

--
:(){ :|:& };:

Mor organised boycotts by Kplx138 · 2011-12-28 22:59 · Score: 5, Interesting

Hopefully there will be a boycott and more boycotts if it fails to get the message across. Not something that should be given up on because it becomes all to hard and doesn't work the first time, after all how much do you value your freedom? Hell work to vote out every idiot that voted for it. Capitalism is supposed to be democratic, they tell you if people don't buy a product a company should understand that there's a problem with their product and rectify the problem or risk going out of business. Boycotts get that message across, worked well for south africa,

I swear schools should teach kids how to organise boycotts right along side the importance of voting. Generations of kids coming up willing to drop massive boycotts on companies for even looking like doing something evil. When someone says that the market will work it out naturally they mean it'll correct itself eventually and I'll a load of cash in the meantime... oh I'm slightly off topic now.

Re:Mor organised boycotts by digitalsolo · 2011-12-29 01:35 · Score: 2

In fairness, most kids have parents, that also hold a teensy bit of responsibility in raising said children.

I know that my son will be brought up to understand the "why and how" of things, instead of simply memorizing dates.

--
Just another ignorant American.

But they DIDN’T! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-28 23:06 · Score: 5, Informative

They *said* they changed their position.
They *didn't* *actually* change it. And they won’t change it.
There's a difference.

Re:But they DIDN’T! by Scutter · 2011-12-29 00:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

They *said* they changed their position.
They *didn't* *actually* change it. And they won’t change it.
There's a difference.
They didn't even SAY they changed it. They said "we'll go look at it again" or some such nonsense. Weasel words.

--

"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"

Re:Who dumped whom? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-28 23:08 · Score: 2, Funny

What's SuperBowl, is it an American thing?

Given that I live in the UK... by Viol8 · 2011-12-28 23:08 · Score: 2

...its pretty unlikely I'd have seen them.

Re:Given that I live in the UK... by InterestingFella · 2011-12-29 01:02 · Score: 2

GoDaddy should be known by everyone, but Imgur is quite obscure. It's just one of those image hosting sites, there's hundreds of them. I only remember it now because I browse TF2 pics on Reddit and couple of days ago noticed it's quite well integrated into Reddit. I've probably used Imgur before too, but image hosting sites aren't exactly brands you easily remember.
Re:Given that I live in the UK... by rich_hudds · 2011-12-29 01:54 · Score: 2

I work in IT in the UK and hadn't heard of either of them either.

THIS is why free markets work by Catiline · 2011-12-28 23:10 · Score: 2, Interesting

For the next year (or so), this will be my counter-example when I debate politics with people who argue that a centrally regulated economy is better than the free market -- as in, "I will happily agree with you, if first you explain this one annoying fact please."

* Constituents and businesses pleaded with Congress [the regulatory body of US "central economic planning"] not to pass SOPA. Congress did anyway.
* People threaten to boycott GoDaddy (direct financial loss) due to supporting SOPA and they reverse course immediately.

I feel the answer is clear, obvious, and simple: businesses are more responsive to their "constituents" then politicians are. Therefore, we should discard [most of] the business regulations -- by which I mean things like minimum wage or union laws, not universal "regulatory" laws like EPA pollution controls -- and go back to a free market.

(Oh, and before people asks: EPA regulations are "universal" because private individuals can violate them just like big business does, for example by developing protected land, or burning waste material. Wage and hiring laws are not "universal" because private individuals cannot be in violation of those laws, only businesses.)

--
Do you like Japanese imports?

Re:THIS is why free markets work by Kplx138 · 2011-12-28 23:33 · Score: 3, Interesting

GoDaddy would have to cease to exist for me to believe the free market works, don't get me work I believe that free markets are a good thing but they need some amount of government regulation to balance out greedy dishonest a-holes.
A lot of people say if we had a "true" free market with out any goverment regulations or interference it would all work out in the end. Much like communists will tell you that most communist states failed because they weren't "true" communism. It's all the speak of a true believer.
Free Market Capitalism and Communism are really get theories but turn to crap when you add people to the equation, just like a computer program will work 100% perfectly until someone uses it then it'll just crash.
Re:THIS is why free markets work by jez9999 · 2011-12-29 00:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

For the next year (or so), this will be my counter-example when I debate politics with people who argue that a centrally regulated economy is better than the free market -- as in, "I will happily agree with you, if first you explain this one annoying fact please."
OK, I'll try: domain registrars do not operate in a free market. They are regulated by ICANN. If they were in a truly free market, GoDaddy could (and almost certainly would) simply refuse to transfer any domains away from themselves.
When you hear talk of a free market working and really look at it, you almost always find that the market isn't TRULY free; it needs regulation, and if that regulation weren't there it would be a disaster.
I agree that domain registration is a relatively free market and this is an example of where a relatively free market works well. However it's not truly free; there's your explanation. In fact I suspect you'd be hard pressed to find any market that needs literally no regulation, to protect people's safety, or prohibit companies from screwing customers over.

--
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Re:THIS is why free markets work by Catiline · 2011-12-29 00:59 · Score: 2

I'm sorry, you seem to be conflating corporations -- who have a position within a market, and long term goals -- with the market as a whole. Let me demonstrate by removing the pronouns from your statement:

...still believe that free markets work. Free markets [note: only plural antecedent] have repeatedly proven that free markets need to be regulated or free markets will take advantage of their position.
I can't make head or tails of what you mean by "free markets will take advantage of their position". Markets, as a whole, don't have a position -- that only can make sense within a market, which requires your use of "they" to referring to a smaller unit, not previously mentioned. I'd assume you mean corporations, in which case you're confused as to what "free market" means -- it is when buyers have freedom to select from among multiple sellers, and refers to corporations not one whit.

--
Do you like Japanese imports?
Re:THIS is why free markets work by digitalsolo · 2011-12-29 01:37 · Score: 2

You got injured from a product, aka lawn darts? Then don't buy them if they're so unsafe!
I was with you until this one. It should never be the government's job to regulate around blatant idiocy.

--
Just another ignorant American.
Re:THIS is why free markets work by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-29 01:58 · Score: 2, Informative

I think you should realize that, for people like Adam Smith, free market literally meant "free of unnecessary charges" and a "market free from monopoly power, business fraud, political insider dealing and special privileges for vested interests". A "free market" particularly meant one free of foreign debt, as discussed in The Wealth of Nations. [blatantly taken from wikipedia]
You have confused "free market" with "market free from regulation" (a.k.a. laissez-faire or libertarian economics). In fact, I would equate a free market with the economic model of "perfect competition" (wikipedia it).
The problem is that a _truly_ free market model (on which the concept of the Invisible Hand is based on) requires several things:
a) low or no barriers of entry and exit and/or high number of participants;
b) rational economic agents/profit maximization;
c) information symmetry/perfect information;
d) the capability for means of production to adapt (long term) to market changes
e) low/zero transaction costs.
Whenever one or several of these assumptions cannot be met, the "free market model" (as described by Adam Smith) no longer works as advertised and pricing is sub-optimal: the market is no longer "free of unnecessary charges".
If you look around, there's plenty of examples of anomalous situations in (so called) free markets, such as inside trading (violation of point C), market panic and hype (violation of point B) and the establishment of monopolies and cartels (usually violation of point A and/or D), which obviously impair the correct allocation of resources in any economy.
This... just to point out that "free market" is not the same as "market free from regulation". If economical agents are rational, they WILL try to subvert free market rules as much as they can for profit maximization and I think you'll find plenty of examples of that, if you care to look around.
Now... regarding this whole GoDaddy situation... let's go back to the assumptions and see which ones were being met:
a) low or no barriers of entry and exit and/or high number of participants - nowadays... I'd say this happens... there ARE lots of domain registrars from which to choose and it's not THAT expensive to join the domain registration market;
b) rational economic agents/profit maximization - sure... in general. Although not totally... GoDaddy, for instance, is known to push unneeded services to their clients, exploiting their lack of rationality+information;
c) information symmetry/perfect information - well... this would be highly ideal... no one knows the price per domain of _every single_ registrar... nevertheless, the fact that this market works over the Internet increases information symmetry... review websites, for instance, help to propagate such information faster between economic agents... in this case, the Internet also helped to propagate information about GoDaddy's unethical/immoral actions;
d) the capability for means of production to adapt (long term) to market changes - uh... sure...
e) low/zero transaction costs - this is true... it's easy to transfer domains between registrars at zero (or near zero) cost; notice, like someone already told you, that this is only so because there is ICANN regulation that imposes that on domain registrars.
So... yeah, in general, the domain registration market _does_ seem to work like a "free market". Nevertheless, it's not a market free from regulation (and it shouldn't be), otherwise it's certain that registrars would abuse (at least) point E for their own profit. Also, notice that, despite the fact that GoDaddy has overinflated pricing for the quality of service they provide, that was not the reason that made people switch: the reason was purely POLITICAL, not ECONOMICAL. The problem of GoDaddy is _simply_ that they decided to support a law that's opposed by a vast majority of their clients and, since domain registration is a free market (although not free from regulation), and their clients are often politically-min
Re:THIS is why free markets work by bzipitidoo · 2011-12-29 02:46 · Score: 2

Try this analogy. How would it work if we "deregulated" football and hockey? Trust the players to regulate themselves. No more penalties. No more central authority to impose rules.
Of course it would be complete chaos. While the dumber players were overdosing on steroids, the more cunning ones would be figuring ways to spike the opposing team's drinks with something debilitating, rigging the playing field for instance by widening the distance between the goal posts the visitors must defend, loading up with ringers to brawl with and injure the other players the next time a bench clearing fight breaks out, and of course, provoking such a fight. It wouldn't be sporting, wouldn't be a game anymore.

--
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"

Re:Who dumped whom? by mdm42 · 2011-12-28 23:10 · Score: 5, Funny

MacWho?

--
New mod option wanted: -1 DrunkenRambling

I'm actually glad that I hosted with them by cptBongo · 2011-12-28 23:14 · Score: 5, Funny

...so I get the satisfaction of dumping them now.

Re:I'm actually glad that I hosted with them by jez9999 · 2011-12-28 23:57 · Score: 2

That's like saying you're glad you got malaria so you could feel what it was like to be cured after a while. :-)

--
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.

Re:This is all bull**** by Seumas · 2011-12-28 23:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

Your comment is probably the most willfully ignorant of this entire topic. You don't think that any of them reallyc are about supporting SOPA or not and that it was probably just some random "hey do we support SOPA?" comment that lead to someone saying "sure, whatever" and then posting that on their website?

Then please explain GoDaddy's role in actively adding their names to the list of SOPA supporters.

Please explain GoDaddy's role in actually CRAFTING PART OF SOPA ITSELF.

Please explain GoDaddy's role in additionally crafting part of SOPA itself such that GoDaddy is exempt from it.

One problem its who GoDaddy's customers are. by robbak · 2011-12-29 00:10 · Score: 4, Funny

I mean, how do we get lowlife scum like typo-squatters to boycott? Who else would tolerate them?

--
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp

Re:One problem its who GoDaddy's customers are. by Myopic · 2011-12-29 04:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

You, sir, have just given the reason why Free Market theories are wrong: consumers do not, in fact, give a flying fuck. Flying fucks are the underlying premise of all Free Market theories -- that consumers will act to get what they want. I have always maintained that consumers do not, in fact, act to get what they want, and you have just shown me right. Thank you! Remember, markets are good, but free markets are bad!

I used to have a domain with Godaddy by iphinome · 2011-12-29 00:17 · Score: 2

But then they took a SOPA to the knee.

Re:Benefits for Go Daddy by Grave · 2011-12-29 00:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

I couldn't agree more. In fact, I think it's extremely selfish and stupid that people aren't willing to give up the rights that the founders of this country fought and died to give us. It's extremely shortsighted for people to think their freedom is more important than the almighty, benevolent, caring, giving corporation. How dare they! Long live the corporation!

Sigh...

Free market != Anarchy by mangu · 2011-12-29 00:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

If they were in a truly free market, GoDaddy could (and almost certainly would) simply refuse to transfer any domains away from themselves.

You seem to have fallen into the common mistake of thinking a free market is the same as anarchy.

Free market is composed of "free" and "market". Market assumes a certain set of rules, among them the right to property. If you have a domain hosted at GoDaddy the domain is yours.

GoDaddy refusing to accept transfer of domains would be like a commercial garage refusing to let people take their cars out. That would be theft, not freedom. What a free market means is that buyer and seller are free to negotiate among themselves the price and conditions of a sale. It does not mean someone is free to steal from someone else.

Re:Exactly by Bengie · 2011-12-29 02:15 · Score: 3, Informative

That comedian recently sold his video online for $5 and DRM free. Was all over torrent immediately. He made over $200k profit in 12 days, and still selling. I fail to see how copyright is required unless someone tries to re-sell his stuff or pass it off and theirs in some other way.

Good riddance GoDaddy! I can't stand 'em! by Frenzied+Apathy · 2011-12-29 02:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

As a web developer, I've worked on a couple of projects hosted at GoDaddy, and I can't stand anything about them - control panel overly confusing, unhelpful help section, horrible tech support, even their marketing (how can anyone take a web hosting company seriously that uses some hot chick to sell their business?). Every chance they get they throw some marketing pitch at you to get you to add on to your services.

They've had plenty of bad press over the year, too: The GoDaddy Saga Continues, GoDaddy Loses over 21000 Domains in One Day, GoDaddy Reverses Course on SOPA, GoDaddy VP Caught Bidding Against Customers.

Every new client I get I recommend they not use GoDaddy - if they insist, I tell them to find another developer...

--
The cake is a lie.

SLASHDOT YOU MORONS by Weezul · 2011-12-29 03:45 · Score: 4, Interesting

Could you PLEASE STOP saying that GoDaddy recanted its support for SOPA!

GoDaddy has NOT withdrawn its official congressional support for SOPA

--
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell

Re:Will GoDaddy refund registrations paid in advan by dlgeek · 2011-12-29 04:23 · Score: 2

Wrong. All transfers extend expiration per ICANN rules. You never lose time on a transfer.

Re:Of course they did... by madmark1 · 2011-12-29 05:21 · Score: 2

I am sure those three people care quite a bit, as do their families. You will also care if you host a site, some idiot posts a link to something copyrighted, and your site gets taken down because of it. Or you happen to have your site hosted on a machine with someone else who has an offending link, and you lose your site because of it. Or someone just decides they don't like your site, files to have it removed, and it goes away, taking YOUR livelihood with it. SOPA isn't unpopular because it fights piracy. It is unpopular because it goes well and beyond fighting piracy. It is unpopular because it very clearly puts piracy prevention above silly things like free speech, the property rights of people who aren't media conglomerates, things like that.

Slashdot Mirror

Imgur.com: Why We Dumped GoDaddy

67 of 279 comments (clear)