Wikipedia Hasn't Forgiven GoDaddy

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wikipedia Hasn't Forgiven GoDaddy

Posted by timothy on Friday February 10, 2012 @05:47PM from the serious-godaddy-issues dept.

netbuzz writes "The fact that a month and a half has gone by and Wikipedia still hasn't followed through on Jimmy Wales public threat to remove its domain name registrations from GoDaddy over the latter's early support of SOPA has some concerned that the online encyclopedia may have had a change of heart. After all, GoDaddy did withdraw its backing of the controversial antipiracy legislation, at least publicly. But fear not, SOPA foes, as Wikipedia says its days with GoDaddy are indeed numbered and that number is getting very small."

126 of 190 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks by MrEricSir · 2012-02-10 17:55 · Score: 5, Insightful
Let's also not forget all the other ways GoDaddy sucks:
- So much up-selling a car dealer would blush
- Obnoxious TV advertisements that are straight out of Idiocracy
- Customer service worse than the post office or a bank
- That whole elephant-killing thing.
So fuck GoDaddy. There's plenty of registrars with better service that cost less anyway.
--
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
1. Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks by Zeroblitzt · 2012-02-10 18:00 · Score: 1
  
  Internets. Serious business.
  
  --
  Mr. America walk on by your schools that do not teach Mr. America walk on by the minds that won't be reached
2. Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-10 18:16 · Score: 1
  
  There's plenty of registrars with better service that cost less anyway.
  Who? Seriously, I'd like to know. A few recommendations of who is both cheaper and has better service would be much appreciated.
3. Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks by symbolset · 2012-02-10 18:43 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I believe when we were having this discussion namecheap was the consensus.
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
4. Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks by stephanruby · 2012-02-10 19:09 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  and don't forget also:
  The GoDaddy CEO publicly supports waterboarding
  GoDaddy already has an history of shutting down domains without requiring to see a court order
  GoDaddy has a long history of getting its customer servers/accounts hacked and not saying anything about it to its customers
  And during the SOPA exodus, which is still going on, it's been dragging its feet on domain transfers (a violation of ICANN rules and regulations).
  Hopefully, they'll have their domain name registry privileges taken away by ICANN because of that last one.
5. Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks by bruce_the_loon · 2012-02-10 19:16 · Score: 1
  
  But.....but.....They have a hot, successful racing chick as their mascot. *Drools*
  
  --
  Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
6. Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks by SuperTechnoNerd · 2012-02-10 19:32 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Don't forget The GoDaddy CEO shoots elephants in Africa for fun too.. Nice guy.
7. Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks by B1oodAnge1 · 2012-02-10 19:33 · Score: 1
  
  I've enjoyed namecheap's services
  
  --
  RUGBYRUGBYRUGBY
8. Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-10 19:50 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  LOL.
  After following your link to waterboarding, which then leads to another page 60 links deep proclaiming the GoDaddy CEO supports waterboarding, the only thing it eventually led to is a blog posting by the CEO calling Guantanamo Bay an "important asset" to protect Americans. So yes, I suppose you could say he therefore supports waterboarding, in the same way that if a staff member at Guantanamo Bay was into BDSM, you could say Bob Parson supports BDSM tooly. Or in the same way that you support Open Source, of which Linux is a leading example, which contains components written by Hans Reiser, who was a murderer; and therefore you publicly support murder.
9. Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks by Slur · 2012-02-10 20:09 · Score: 1
  
  I went for a Hostgator reseller account. But just till they get too evil.
  
  --
  -- thinkyhead software and media
10. Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-10 21:13 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Look... if you want people to stop using GoDaddy. Point out that: 1. They have shit customer service. 2. they are all too willing to serve up your information for marketing. 3. they support really obnoxious internet censoring legislation.
  Do not: get all politically correct about their adverts (oh look... objectifying women... hate crime! HATE CRIME!!), or the fact that their CEO shoots elephants. Why... because no-one gives a fuck about those things, and it makes you look like a hissy-fit throwing faggot.
11. Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks by Air-conditioned+cowh · 2012-02-10 21:48 · Score: 1
  
  Plus the user interface pages end in "aspx". Which is the mark of the BEAST!
12. Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks by BenoitRen · 2012-02-10 23:25 · Score: 2
  
  Elephant-killing thing? That's a first. Got a link?
13. Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-10 23:26 · Score: 1
  
  What's wrong with that? Pleanty of people hunt animals, pleanty of people go fishing, there's no difference except an elephant is slightly bigger than most fish.
  Of course if he was doing it illegally then that's another matter...
14. Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks by Canazza · 2012-02-11 00:04 · Score: 1
  
  or because my Workmate went to school with James McAvoy, who starred in X-Men First Class with Kevin Bacon means that I'm friends with Kevin Bacon!
  
  --
  It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
15. Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks by marcosdumay · 2012-02-11 00:43 · Score: 2
  
  the only thing it eventually led to is a blog posting by the CEO calling Guantanamo Bay an "important asset" to protect Americans
  Thus GD does support waterboarding. I was expecting that to be FUD.
  
  --
  Rethinking email
16. Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks by heypete · 2012-02-11 01:10 · Score: 1
  
  While NameCheap is ICANN-accredited, it looks like nearly all of their domain-related services are handled by eNom, who doesn't seem like the most above-board place around. Sure, eNom has a ton of domains registered with them, but that doesn't mean they're not shady.
  Personally, I'd rather go with Gandi or NearlyFreeSpeech.net.
17. Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks by realityimpaired · 2012-02-11 01:29 · Score: 2
  
  http://sibername.com/
  I've had very good experience with them, and *very* good customer service. They got me out of a serious bind with a previous registrar who closed shop on a Saturday, without notice, and stopped returning calls. They helped me to expedite the transfer of my domain to them on a Sunday morning. I did have a major advantage in that I still had all of the original registration paperwork and passwords from CIRA (.ca domain), and their head office is across the street from where I work, but I don't know a lot of registrars that would take an emergency call at 2am on a Sunday, and make arrangements for me to go in to the office at 8am to sign the paperwork and transfer a domain.
  And for most domain types, they're either cheaper than GoDaddy, or the same price.
18. Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks by Ihmhi · 2012-02-11 01:48 · Score: 1
  
  I dunno, that's kinda like saying a politician supports rape because he thinks prisons are a good idea.
  
  --
  Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
19. Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks by Arrepiadd · 2012-02-11 02:36 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Put two fish of the same species in a proper environment and safe from predators and after one year you have 10000 of them.
  Put two elephants in an equivalent scenario and after one year you have two elephants. After two years you may have three. After 10 years, all things perfect, you'll have about 5 of them.
  Now go back to the end of year one... kill one fish, kill one elephant. Do you see where this is going?
20. Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks by smellotron · 2012-02-11 03:15 · Score: 1
  
  I dunno, that's kinda like saying a politician supports rape because he thinks prisons are a good idea.
  
  Well, it's not like the Guantanamo detainees are waterboarding each other... or... ARE THEY?
21. Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks by drinkypoo · 2012-02-11 03:31 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  REGISTERING DOMAINS FOR WHICH YOU HAVE SEARCHED ON GODADDY AND THEN PARKING THEM AND DEMANDING YOU PAY MORE THAN DOMAIN REGISTRATION FEES TO GET THEM.
  Sorry about the all caps, but that is far and away the most evil thing GoDaddy has ever done, because as a registrar their job is to register domains, not speculate on them. I hope they all get ass cancer.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
22. Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks by drinkypoo · 2012-02-11 03:33 · Score: 2
  
  I dunno, that's kinda like saying a politician supports rape because he thinks prisons are a good idea.
  A politician DOES support rape if he supports the prison-industrial complex. Period, the end.
  Your simile is not sufficiently similar. Gitmo exists to behave in ways that we do not permit in other prisons, and thus, supporting Gitmo is explicitly supporting the behavior that goes on at Gitmo. Logic? You fail it.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
23. Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks by richlv · 2012-02-11 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  Put two fish of the same species in a proper environment and safe from predators and after one year you have 10000 of them.
  Put two elephants in an equivalent scenario and after one year you have two elephants.
  wow. how do you do that ? i mean, shortening elephant pregnancy in half is mighty impressive.
  on a slightly more serious note, yes, godaddy seems to be quite some bit too evil to deal with.
  
  --
  Rich
24. Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-11 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  Kevin Bacon = Movies = MPAA = supporter of SOPA.
  Canazza = friends with Kevin Bacon
  - - - - - - - - - - +
  Canazza supports SOPA!
  Anything wrong with my math?!?
25. Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks by cheekyjohnson · 2012-02-11 05:01 · Score: 2
  
  He didn't say anything about bears, so why are you assuming he's a hypocrite?
  Also, that may be because the population is larger.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
26. Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks by Strange+Ranger · 2012-02-11 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  -...because no-one gives a fuck about those things
  I do.
  
  --
  
  Operator, give me the number for 911!
27. Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks by Nemyst · 2012-02-11 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sorry but tasteless obnoxious adverts are definitely one of the reasons why I'll never use GoDaddy. They put out a poor image and quite honestly would make me feel dirty if I were to support them by registering there.
28. Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks by BenJury · 2012-02-11 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  Personally I can think of lots of words for people who actively enjoy the killing of other creatures, let alone the likes of Elephants. Pretty much all of which I cant post on /. to protect everyones innocence.
  
  --
  Blatant Advert: Android Apps!
29. Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks by SuperTechnoNerd · 2012-02-11 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  I can't complain too much about http://www.networksolutions.com/
30. Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks by SuperTechnoNerd · 2012-02-11 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  I have no problem hunting and killing an animal for food.As long as you use 80% or more of the animal. But killing for sport, or for a tusk or horn and leaving the rest for scavengers, Is not good. Killing of endangered or protected animals like elephants in Africa is not good either.
  
  Did i mention the wonderful deer steaks, and deer meatloaf I had last year was super yummy!
31. Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks by tbird81 · 2012-02-11 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  Is it possible to get them to register/park a whole lot of gibberish domains? They're never going to sell gjioewjr3njk32.com.
32. Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks by afabbro · 2012-02-11 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  A politician DOES support rape if he supports the prison-industrial complex. Period, the end.
  Or put another way:
  
  Logic? You fail it.
  
  --
  Advice: on VPS providers
33. Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks by Algae_94 · 2012-02-11 09:44 · Score: 2
  
  That's why good fish and game management gives hunting and fishing permits based on data of the population of a species. If there were so few elephants that killing one would lead to extinction of the species and the authorities allowed it to be hunted legally, who is at fault here? The hunter who has no idea how many elephants are out there, or the authorities that track them and do population counts?
  
  Also, in your example, if you go back to year one and kill one fish and one elephant, you would have one fish and one elephant left. You would then have one fish and one elephant until they each died and then you would have none. So in that example allowing either fish or elephant to be killed would be irresponsible and lead to the loss of the entire population.
34. Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks by gmack · 2012-02-11 09:48 · Score: 2
  
  Except for the part where they have mistakenly transferred domains (sex.com being the largest but not the only example) and then not only refused to fix the problem but argued in court that they shouldn't be responsible for or need to fix the problem. Not to mention the whole frontrunning thing they got caught doing a few years back where they registered domain names people searched for in advance so that they would be the only people who could register the domain.
  On the evil scale network solutions are worse than GoDaddy.
35. Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks by drinkypoo · 2012-02-11 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  If I were pure, concentrated evil and I were doing the same thing I would score them based on how many english words were in them.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
36. Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks by Arrepiadd · 2012-02-11 13:13 · Score: 1
  
  Just a clarification, I think something got lost between my original comment and yours...
  Elephant gestation is about 22 months. When I said after one year you have two elephants I meant the same two, not two more...
37. Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks by dangitman · 2012-02-11 13:49 · Score: 1
  
  So to what degree should we boycott Kevin Bacon?
  I oppose any Bacon boycotts on the grounds of deliciousness.
  
  --
  ... and then they built the supercollider.
38. Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks by richlv · 2012-02-11 13:50 · Score: 1
  
  ah, sorry about that - re-reading it, the sentence indeed is correct, i just got confused by it :)
  
  --
  Rich
39. Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks by Creepy · 2012-02-12 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  GoDaddy has a long history of getting its customer servers/accounts hacked and not saying anything about it to its customers
  And you didn't see that coming when they announced they were Microsoft only, and that was back in the XP timeframe (pre Windows 2003?), so all its servers were probably being run as admin users?
40. Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks by billdale · 2012-02-12 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  Timothy is correct-- you are the one whose math is off. An elephant has a gestation of 22 months, so after a year, an elephant cow is still pregnant; after another 12 months, she will have had a single calf that is 2 months old. I cannot see how you could think he made any mistakes.
  I find ANYONE shooting elephants a vert troubling thing, unless they are sick, in pain, and are being euthanzed. Several years ago I was in Flint Michigan when a carnival/circus was there... the circus has a trained elephant. Overnight, some coward shot the elephant... it was laying on its side next to its tent. If I had known who the vermin was that shot that poor creature, I'm not sure if I could have kept myself from killing him. Someone like that is surely a threat to everyone he is around-- it's my guess he has committed many other crimes before and since... rape, murder, mayhem. A worthless individual.
41. Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks by crispylinetta · 2012-02-13 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  Also, in your example, if you go back to year one and kill one fish and one elephant, you would have one fish and one elephant left.
  
  Try reading again. Go back to the END of year one. You would have one elephant and 9,999 fish. A bit different.
forgivness by SuperTechnoNerd · 2012-02-10 18:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

I have not forgiven my congress critters either. Looking forward to November.
1. Re:forgivness by bky1701 · 2012-02-10 18:24 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  So you can vote in the other (potentially worse) corporate candidate? Or do you plan to vote for a third party with little chance of winning? If the first, at least do the due diligence of figuring out if the opposition is more fanatical in support of the things you dislike. This is a step I fear most people do not realize is necessary. If the second, well... have fun being a statistical outlier.
  
  --
  Great Intellect...
2. Re:forgivness by EuclideanSilence · 2012-02-10 18:31 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  What the hell is wrong with being a statistical outlier? Elections aren't some horserace that you win by voting for the candidate that gets office, they are won when public opinion changes.
3. Re:forgivness by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-10 18:44 · Score: 1
  
  IIMO, some level of worseness is acceptable -- 2 or 6 years of crap is bad, but it might be worth it sending a message (over several election cycles) that anyone who places corporate interests above their constituents loses their seat, no ifs or buts,
4. Re:forgivness by artor3 · 2012-02-10 18:45 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  What the hell is wrong with being a statistical outlier? Elections aren't some horserace that you win by voting for the candidate that gets office, they are won when public opinion changes.
  True, but public opinion isn't changed by the fact that 0.2% of the vote went to Generic Third Party #17. Not even a little bit.
  If you want to effect change via voting:
  1) Primary for the best candidate you can find (a lot of people ignore this step, and then go on to bemoan that they only have two choices in the general election)
  2) Vote for the least bad of the two major party nominees at the federal level
  3) Vote for third parties at the local and state level
  Non-federal politics matter a whole lot -- more than federal politics for many aspects of life -- and are easier to influence. Plus the pool of people who get taken seriously at a federal level tends to be drawn from those who have been successful at the lower levels. If you can get a great candidate to be a popular and successful state senator, then he's got a good shot at becoming governor. If you've got a popular and successful independent governor, I know a whole lot of people who'd love to see him become president. It's admittedly a long shot, but it's better than throwing away your vote every cycle in a protest that 99.9% of the populace won't even notice.
5. Re:forgivness by symbolset · 2012-02-10 18:52 · Score: 1
  
  I know you're projecting cynicism. This issue did engage so many people that over 10 million did something and 100 million were at least impacted. In a country where only 80 million people vote and the difference between winning and losing is often only a few thousand or hundred thousand depending on the office that can sway some significant change. We may see a November surprise.
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
6. Re:forgivness by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-10 18:56 · Score: 1
  
  So you can vote in the other (potentially worse) corporate candidate? Or do you plan to vote for a third party with little chance of winning? If the first, at least do the due diligence of figuring out if the opposition is more fanatical in support of the things you dislike. This is a step I fear most people do not realize is necessary. If the second, well... have fun being a statistical outlier.
  Statistical outliers can make or break wannabe presidents, just ask George H.W. Bush or Al Gore. There's your influence.
7. Re:forgivness by amRadioHed · 2012-02-10 19:07 · Score: 2
  
  Maybe... OTOH our populace is also terribly apathetic and has almost no long-term political memory. Getting 10 million people to click a link or sign a petition after having the issue thrown in their face all day is a good accomplishment, but how many of those people will a) go to the polls, and b) remember what it was they cared so much about 10 months previously?
  I know it's more of that cynicism, but i'm just not convinced it will be a major factor come election time.
  
  --
  We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
8. Re:forgivness by SuperTechnoNerd · 2012-02-10 19:14 · Score: 1
  
  "So you can vote in the other (potentially worse) corporate candidate? Or do you plan to vote for a third party with little chance of winning? "
  
  Thees are all true statements. But it's about shaking up the status quo, and trying to choosing the lesser evil, and sending a message. And if you trying to say you have lost faith in the whole gosh darn system and just stop giving a shit - I can understand your frustration - I share it. But giving up and doing nothing is not going to help.
  
  "If the first, at least do the due diligence of figuring out if the opposition is more fanatical in support of the things you dislike."
  
  Absolutely. This whole SOPA/PIPA crap has open my eyes wide and I will be looking now very closely at our politicians. A big step for a non-political person like me. I deal in programming and logic. Listening to our lawmakers talk makes me cringe, and projectile vomit in some cases..
  
  Keep the faith
9. Re:forgivness by epine · 2012-02-10 20:13 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  True, but public opinion isn't changed by the fact that 0.2% of the vote went to Generic Third Party #17. Not even a little bit.
  You can't back that up, I don't believe it to begin with, and the argument from continuity suggests it's not even logically possible, not to mention the problem with induction.
  There exists threshold j below which your vote matters not at all in the minds of dullards who believe this. At some point you have to cross the dullard threshhold. Only a non-dullard can move the dullards. But even the non-dullard concedes that there exists k much less than j below which his inductive impetus is wasted. Only a double non-dullard can move the non-dullards. But even a double non-dullard concedes that there exists m much less than k ...
  On a more practical basis, there was a time in the nineties in a Canadian election where the dismal third option failed to clear a threshold I didn't even know about: percentage of popular vote which granted them official party status and the resources which flow from that. All the idiots were saying "don't waste your vote" over votes this party desperately needed to clear this bar.
  The big one in America, of course, is excluding Ralph Nadar (or anyone like him) from the presidential debate. I think that's the worst possible outcome of all, because it grants the asylum complete control over the speaking points. All you have left are two candidates promising the same small opposites. We're left arguing over the colour of the paint rather than whether to adopt a gasoline or diesel engine.
  These throw-away votes don't decide between the donkey and the elephant, but they have a big impact on whether good candidates, or at least strong voices for a different future, bother to show up at all.
  I believe America should outlaw two party debate in presidential elections. There should always be at least a third voice who gets equal time, selected by whatever mechanism proves workable. (This is probably a long term arms race where the incumbents constantly work to scupper whatever worked the time before.)
  In fact, I wouldn't mind having an entire panel of third party voices who collectively get 1/3 of the total debate time. They can have a bidding system among themselves for who gets to cut in on which issues.
  Your rule of thumb is a good one for people who don't wish to think. Not even a little bit.
10. Re:forgivness by artor3 · 2012-02-10 20:51 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  You can't back that up (1), I don't believe it to begin with (2), and the argument from continuity suggests it's not even logically possible (3), not to mention the problem with induction (4).
  1. Yes, I can, through experience and basic knowledge of how people tend to approach politics. I know, I know, "problem of induction". We'll come to that.
  2. Clearly, but your belief is not required for it to be true.
  3. You're misusing the continuity argument. Clearly there exists some threshold at which third party votes matter. In practice, that threshold is far above what we're currently capable of reaching. The continuity argument only applies when you can reach both endpoints.
  4. The "problem" of induction is a philosophical one. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem proves that no numerical system can be both consistent and complete, but that doesn't stop me from using math. Likewise, while the "problem" of induction means that my never having seen the Cubs win a World Series does not make such an event impossible, I'm sure as all hell not gonna bet on them.
  Your recursive stack of "dullards", while cute, misses a key point. It assumes that as you progress in levels (j, k, m, n4, n5, n6...), as your level approaches infinity the threshold will drop to zero. Maybe instead the threshold asymptotically approaches 10%. Below that level, even the infinitely non-dullardly don't care about the third party vote. And before you raise yourself as a counter example, note that we can have also have a class of double-dullards (don't complain about the offensive terminology -- you picked it) who always care.
  In short, you're trying too hard to apply simple mathematical reasoning to a process that is far more complex than you have accounted for. I don't doubt that it is theoretically possible to model human behavior in such a way, but your name's not Hari Seldon, and you're not going to perform a psychohistorical analysis of American voting trends in a Slashdot comment.
11. Re:forgivness by bky1701 · 2012-02-10 20:52 · Score: 2
  
  Only to be replaced by their friends? What purpose on this earth does effectively making term limits 1 term have relating to the prevention of corruption?
  
  --
  Great Intellect...
12. Re:forgivness by bky1701 · 2012-02-10 20:55 · Score: 1
  
  You can't win them by going completely unnoticed, either. People need to have the sense to use their vote in a useful way. Blowing it on whatever party suits your fancy on election day is simply irresponsible. Vote in the primaries if you care and feel you are not represented. The fact Ron Paul is still bouncing around, however misguided he might be, shows that it is possible to have an effect on the system that way. Otherwise, suck it up and take the lesser evil, since one of the two will win, and I damn sure want it to be the lesser of them if there is an option.
  
  --
  Great Intellect...
13. Re:forgivness by bky1701 · 2012-02-10 21:00 · Score: 1
  
  "But it's about shaking up the status quo, and trying to choosing the lesser evil, and sending a message."
  
  Then do that in the primary. Do that by supporting third parties in the run up to congressional elections. Don't roll out of bed on election day and think that checking the third box on the ballot means anything thing about your ability to overturn the system. When it comes down to it, nothing short of a massive cultural shift is going to overcome the power of the two party system as a whole, and that isn't going to happen; there have been much more interesting periods in American history than this.
  
  --
  Great Intellect...
14. Re:forgivness by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-10 22:15 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Fuck that shit.
  The UK has it's first Green MP a year or so ago because people actually voted for the candidate they wanted, rather than who they thought had a chance of winning.
  If you keep voting for primary Democrat/Republicans, guess what, that's what you'll keep getting!
15. Re:forgivness by GreatBunzinni · 2012-02-10 22:38 · Score: 1
  
  So you can vote in the other (potentially worse) corporate candidate? Or do you plan to vote for a third party with little chance of winning?
  Are you aware of what happens if you, or anyone, refuses to vote for "the third party with little chance of winning"? I'll tell you what happens: the third party candidate has little chance of winning.
  Think about it.
  
  --
  Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
16. Re:forgivness by GreatBunzinni · 2012-02-10 22:45 · Score: 1
  
  True, but public opinion isn't changed by the fact that 0.2% of the vote went to Generic Third Party #17. Not even a little bit.
  Are you voting in function of what the public opinion is, or are you actually depositing your vote on what you personally believe is the best candidate?
  You don't get any prize in voting on the winning candidate. Voting for a public election isn't a groupon deal. You vote on the candidate you believe is the best candidate for office, and then election officials count your vote. If your candidate doesn't win then tough luck, at least that candidate got your vote and you actually did your job as a citizen.
  Now, if you go against your own opinion and you vote not on the candidate you believe is the best option but on some other candidate due to some idiotic reason, such as "although I hate him at least I believe he has a chance of wining", then you failed your job as a citizen of a democratic state and you contributed to the sad state of affairs.
  So, please think a bit about how you vote and why you vote.
  
  --
  Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
17. Re:forgivness by artor3 · 2012-02-10 22:47 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, in a district of 70k people, with three major parties to divide votes between instead of just two. In the US, the average congressional district is nearly ten times that size (~650k), and there are only two major parties.
  And out of curiosity, how much has that one MP been able to do? She's not part of the Tory-Lib Dem coalition government, and while I admit my knowledge of British politics is shaky (having come mostly from being stuck in a hotel that only received the BBC and some weird Japanese crap for the entire month of May 2010), I'm pretty sure that that means she has no real power. But checking their party's Wikipedia article, I see that they won a local election in 2011 and were able to get at least a few policy goals through. Which is the exact method of change that I advocated.
18. Re:forgivness by artor3 · 2012-02-10 23:09 · Score: 1
  
  I cast each and every vote in the manner that I think will best benefit my country. You're telling me that I should ignore what's best for the country and follow my heart, and tough luck if that causes widespread suffering. Not only that, but that to do otherwise means I'm somehow failing in my duty. Noted, and duly ignored. I will continue to work my ass off in every election to maximize benefit to the country, instead of running off after some Hollywood-inspired dream that things would all be perfect if only everyone followed their heart. That approach only works when you have a benevolent author willing to make it work.
19. Re:forgivness by perlchild · 2012-02-10 23:31 · Score: 1
  
  Whatever method works...
  AND the results are secret FROM the candidates, AND the public, until the debate.
  The third candidate should be a total unknown to both existing parties, and they should enter the lion's cage TOTALLY unharmed.
20. Re:forgivness by madprof · 2012-02-11 00:08 · Score: 1
  
  She may not actually change the content of any government legislation, or even swing a vote in the House of Commons, but she has a far more powerful voice to espouse her views and challenge the complacent Westminster establishment.
  The best thing is that if she does a half-decent job for her constituents, they might return her at the next election as she's not liable to lose votes due to the ruling party losing popularity.
21. Re:forgivness by marcosdumay · 2012-02-11 00:49 · Score: 1
  
  True, but public opinion isn't changed by the fact that 0.2% of the vote went to Generic Third Party #17. Not even a little bit.
  I understand that US elections are doomed by that one turn only thing... But even then you are looking at things in an inverted way. It is the pool that must change because of public opinion, not the other way around.
  By the way, are your elections for Congress also not representative? Because that is the most important vote you have (yeah, even at the US).
  
  --
  Rethinking email
22. Re:forgivness by tomhath · 2012-02-11 01:15 · Score: 1
  
  If you can get a great candidate to be a popular and successful state senator, then he's got a good shot at becoming
  A state senator moving all the way up to President? Unheard of...oh wait.
23. Re:forgivness by skegg · 2012-02-11 01:33 · Score: 1
  
  I'm all for people throwing their vote behind an underdog, if that's who they believe in.
  The federal political landscape has changed in Australia thanks to people voting for a minor party, the Australian Greens.
  Check out this link showing the Greens' progress over the past 15 years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Greens#2010_election_onward
  At one point they held no seats ... then they held 2% ... now they're at 13% of the Senate!
  Interestingly, a notable portion of the Greens' votes are "protest votes"; people who, out of disgust or frustration, vote for a party other than the 2 majors.
  At the next election, I can assure you there will be electorates where some people will vote for the Greens -- which will end up with 2% of the vote -- while the majors will each get about 40%. I do understand your argument that you can decide the outcome by backing one of the majors.
  But I do not believe that is the right thing to do. You should vote for who you support.
  * when the results come in it's 1 extra vote that may encourage the candidate to run again at the next election
  * it could be the 1 vote that results in them getting extra public funding
  * it could be the 1 vote that encourages another voter to support them next time ("Hey, they got n%. They might just win next time.")
  * more importantly, if just a few thousand of us did that, it can be enough to win the seat (depending on the electorate size)
  * finally, many, many thousands of us have been doing just that, and the Australian Greens now have 13% of the Australian Senate
24. Re:forgivness by Hatta · 2012-02-11 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  You're telling me that I should ignore what's best for the country and follow my heart, and tough luck if that causes widespread suffering.
  The fact that you cannot vote for the candidate you believe is best for the country, because that would lead to widespread suffering is an indication that the electoral system is fundamentally broken. By participating in that system you legitimize it and further increase the widespread suffering you fear. If you're not fighting for people who would fix the voting system, you're not doing anyone a bit of good.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
25. Re:forgivness by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-02-11 03:39 · Score: 2
  
  The UK has a completely different election system in which minor parties are not completely neutered. In the USA the candidate who finishes first wins, even if he only got 30% of the vote. Small parties only have a chance in such a system if there are no big parties.
26. Re:forgivness by imjustmatthew · 2012-02-11 03:57 · Score: 2
  
  Our current options are a twatwaffle who hasn't even read the fucking Constitution, versus a pretty terrible businessman who hasn't read the Constitution, a Theocratic frothy mixture of lube and fecal material who makes the Ayatollah look like an Atheist, and a douchebag that was kicked out of Congress. There's a slim chance we might get the chance for a crazy old guy who's read the Constitution and therefore will accomplish nothing, because by virtue of understanding the actual powers granted to the Federal government, he scares the fuck out of both Democraps and Republicunts.
  That, sir, is the best description of candidates I've read yet.
27. Re:forgivness by Maxx169 · 2012-02-11 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  If your vote doesn't matter for a 'third party', then it likewise doesn't matter for a 'first party' either. Your vote only (by your definition) 'matters' if a bunch of other people vote in the same manner: third party, first party or penguin.
28. Re:forgivness by El_Oscuro · 2012-02-11 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  I just donated $50 to Gary Johnson, the Libertarian dude. Unlike all of the other idiots, he actually has some ideas that seem to make sense. I will also be voting in the primary. I'm pretty sure he won't get elected, but if he gets enough support and votes, it might shake things up.
  
  --
  "Be grateful for what you have. You may never know when you may lose it."
29. Re:forgivness by cheekyjohnson · 2012-02-11 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  True, but public opinion isn't changed by the fact that 0.2% of the vote went to Generic Third Party #17.
  Depends on the person. Depends on the time. I don't think the solution is to simply give up.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
30. Re:forgivness by Richy_T · 2012-02-11 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  And it's important to vote for winners. Which is why I wait to vote until after the election.
31. Re:forgivness by SuperTechnoNerd · 2012-02-11 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  My that sounds recursive.. This must be a first for slashdot... :)
To be fair... by Daetrin · 2012-02-10 18:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

I expect with a company the size of Wikipedia, particularly one with Wikipedia's web presence, switching your hosting around isn't really something you can do on the turn of a dime.

On the other side of the coin though (er, so to speak) i wonder if this is really the best tactic. I mean, i couldn't wish for the fallout to land on a more deserving company, but will this affect Wikipedia's bargaining position for similar situations in the future? Threatening to punish people for actions you don't like is just fine (well, assuming you stick to legal methods of course) but if they recant and you follow through on your threats regardless, would the next company you deal with have any reason to recant?

--
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
1. Re:To be fair... by EdIII · 2012-02-10 18:26 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  switching your hosting around isn't really something you can do on the turn of a dime
  Exactly. It does take time, especially for a large organization, to find a suitable replacement for services.
  
  .....but if they recant and you follow through on your threats regardless, would the next company you deal with have any reason to recant?
  That's not the point. There is no forgiveness for GoDaddy. Absolute Utter Destruction Required. They KNOW better.
  Some actions are not possible to take back. Yes, I will compare it to murder. You just can't take it back. Do I care that the murderer is blubbering in the court room? Nope. Not at all. Fry his ass.
  That is what it really comes down too. A deterrent. When we partially hang GoDaddy, cut off their balls, disembowel them, chop of their head, and distribute the remaining portions of their body on spikes to the far reaches of the Internet it will stand as warning to all companies to not support laws that threaten the base functionality of the Internet and a free and open network.
  Their cries for mercy fall on deaf ears and hardened resolve.
2. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-10 18:37 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Except Godaddy didn't really recant.
3. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-10 18:43 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  As far as I'm aware, Wikipedia does not depend on GoDaddy for anything other than domain registrar services. They don't use them for DNS. They don't use them for hosting of any kind. So actually, yes, they literally can switch to another registrar on the turn of a dime. I've seen it done with corporate sites fielding millions of page views a month, and downtime should be precisely zero. Nothing changes aside from the registrar name in the whois info.
4. Re:To be fair... by EdIII · 2012-02-10 19:27 · Score: 4
  
  Uhhhh... yeah okay.
  That might be true if Wikipedia was being unreasonable. If I knew there was a potential big client out there with a lot of media clout that was known to be unreasonable and difficult to work with I would probably pass on servicing them too. However, taking a stance against something like SOPA, which anybody remotely involved with Internet knows is bad, very very bad, is hardly unreasonable.
  Saying SOPA is political is like saying we could have rational discourse about the *possibility* of owning African Americans as slaves and starting up our "import business" all over again to compete with China on low cost labor.
  No. SOPA is only political in the remotely tangential sense that it involves some politicians. Other than that, there is no rational basis on the pro-SOPA side to enact such dangerous and draconian laws.
  Pro life and anti-evolution have more rational arguments and positions than SOPA and could be considered a valid political debate amongst the citizenry. SOPA is just flat out insanity with no possible redeeming virtue towards society in any way, shape, or form.
  Political my ass. To characterize it as such it to give it validity. It has none whatsoever.
5. Re:To be fair... by Patch86 · 2012-02-10 20:14 · Score: 1
  
  "Don't take their money- they might not keep giving us money forever!"
  It's probably for the best that you aren't running a hosting company.
6. Re:To be fair... by EdIII · 2012-02-10 20:44 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  It's still not political and I am delusional, ignorant, or refusing to accept reality.
  Political, in the contemporary sense, and in this context, means that it is an argument about laws, regulations, policy, or a school of thought on how society should be administered to the benefit of the society. There can two or more sides to the argument, but what they all have in common is at least the pretense that it is beneficial towards society and serves to protect it.
  I deny SOPA that status. While politicians may be involved in it, there is no valid discussion, no valid arguments, and no valid sides supporting SOPA. That is why it is not political. It is entirely one-sided. No other argument in government can claim such distinction. Not FISA, not the Patriot Act, not Abortion, not Gay Marriage, etc. Every single one them has some sort of basis to support it. Some sort of rationale in which the American Way of Life (tm) is protected and allowed to flourish, even if I may disagree with it.
  SOPA is pure corruption and abuse in its most distilled form. It is the most direct assault on intelligence, liberty, and common sense that I have been witness to in my entire life.
  I don't know of any stronger terms that I can state just how evil SOPA *is*. For me to acknowledge it as political means that it there is some sort of public interest served in the debate. I just can't see that or say it.
7. Re:To be fair... by MMC+Monster · 2012-02-10 23:15 · Score: 2
  
  Wikipedia is a top ten website in the world (see: http://www.alexa.com/topsites ).
  Taking their time is due diligence.
  
  --
  Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
8. Re:To be fair... by marcosdumay · 2012-02-11 00:58 · Score: 1
  
  You don't own a business do you?
  That "I don't want your money, because you already demonstrated that if I start to work contrary to your interest you'll stop giving me your money" is ridiculous. If you want a hint, when you start a business don't act contrary to your clients' interest. They don't like it.
  
  --
  Rethinking email
9. Re:To be fair... by marcosdumay · 2012-02-11 01:05 · Score: 1
  
  When two or more people met, everything they do is political. There is no possible modern meaning different from that.
  But, of course, that also puts in a ridiculous light the people complaining that Wikipedia is being political. Of course it is. Choosing GD was also a political move, ditto for deciding to host pages.
  Now, of course, that assumes we need one more reason for ridicularizing people that complain that NGOs are acting in a political way. I would disagree here.
  
  --
  Rethinking email
10. Re:To be fair... by marcosdumay · 2012-02-11 01:06 · Score: 1
  
  Why would anybody use GD for hosting?
  
  --
  Rethinking email
11. Re:To be fair... by DerekLyons · 2012-02-11 01:51 · Score: 1
  
  No, it's more like I don't care to be publicly bullied over whatever their cause-of-the-month is. They've done it once, they'll do it again.
12. Re:To be fair... by Hatta · 2012-02-11 02:01 · Score: 1
  
  While politicians may be involved in it, there is no valid discussion, no valid arguments, and no valid sides supporting SOPA. That is why it is not political. It is entirely one-sided. No other argument in government can claim such distinction.
  Cannabis prohibition.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
13. Re:To be fair... by DerekLyons · 2012-02-11 02:03 · Score: 1
  
  I've owned several over the years in fact. And I've stood up multiple times against customers who wanted to bully me into running my business they way they thought it should be run.
  What's abundantly clear is that you're clueless about running a business and clueless about the issue at hand. It's not "I have to work in the customers interest", which is (duh) common sense. It's "not being held under the threat of being publicly bullied over their next cause-of-the-month". Now that they've done it once, they've tasted blood and will do it again - and there's no guarantee that next time the issue will actually be one of substance. The minor fee that Wikipedia will pay for registering a domain with me wouldn't be worth the risk of being held publicly hostage to their political views.
14. Re:To be fair... by strength_of_10_men · 2012-02-11 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  So just don't be bullied. Take their business and when your interests no longer align, part ways. Why avoid the business on the chance that things might not go swimmingly forever? Doesn't seem like very saavy business sense to me.
15. Re:To be fair... by crutchy · 2012-02-11 10:09 · Score: 1
  
  peace and happiness for all... maaan V
16. Re:To be fair... by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-02-11 12:00 · Score: 1
  
  They can be political on someone else's dime
  Unless they didn't pay for their domains, they're political on their own dime.
  On the other hand, what you're advocating is basically like hanging a sign on your business that says "communists are not served here". Fine by me if you just want to make a point, but it doesn't do anything good for your bottom line.
OMFG by Osgeld · 2012-02-10 18:23 · Score: 1

they are waiting till their next billing cycle, news at 11
Re:Fun, but... by EdIII · 2012-02-10 18:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

That's being a bit simplistic.
If I walked into a local restaurant and received poor service and bad tasting food, the people there might be a bit dismissive when I complain loudly and tell them that I am going "blog that shit all over the Internet".
Now if President Obama walked in (unlikely I know) and then mentioned how shitty the place was to the White House press core, it might be a little more devastating.
Both of us spent the same amount of money, and represent the same amount of loss in the future on an individual basis, but one certainly stings a bit more.
I finally quit godaddy this week by alex_guy_CA · 2012-02-10 18:50 · Score: 4, Informative

I called up hover.com. Spoke with someone on the phone, gave her my godaddy login info. She did all of the work for me. I'm done with godaddy, and I can't think that there is any possible way it could have been easier.

--
San Francisco Photographers
And this costs GoDaddy what, $2.95? by Animats · 2012-02-10 18:52 · Score: 4, Informative

And this costs GoDaddy what, $2.95? It's just domain registration. Wikipedia isn't hosted by GoDaddy.
There's a hierarchy of registrars. At the top is MarkMonitor, which registers domains like "ford.com". If you have to ask how much their registration costs, you can't afford it. This is where you register a "must stay up" domain. If anything goes wrong with a MarkMonitor registration, alarms go off and teams of DNS admins and lawyers swing into action.
Network Solutions is a reasonable registrar for corporate domains. They have "amazon.com", for example. If something goes wrong, you can usually get them ont he phone and get them to do something.
Much further down is GoDaddy. But they're not the bottom. Below GoDaddy are the bulk registrars, like Enom. That's where you register junk domains for link farms, domaining, and other dubious activities. At the bottom are the registrars in the ICANN list that don't even have valid contact information. It's not clear what they're doing, but it's probably not good.
1. Re:And this costs GoDaddy what, $2.95? by FreakyGreenLeaky · 2012-02-10 20:17 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It costs them reputation.
2. Re:And this costs GoDaddy what, $2.95? by Jay+L · 2012-02-11 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  Network Solutions is, in fact, a horrible registrar for corporate domains. This winter we changed our DNS from NetSol to Amazon Route 53. When NetSol repoints domains, it *immediately* starts serving generic "parking page" A records from the old DNS server. Combine this with the fact that many ISPs ignore the SOA TTL record, and you have a domain that's down for over a day for your customers at BellSouth, Cox, RCN, and probably others. We did get them on the phone, and was told "that's the way it works".
3. Re:And this costs GoDaddy what, $2.95? by drunkennewfiemidget · 2012-02-11 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  Yea, this post is just out and out wrong and shows a visible misunderstanding of how registrars (and subsequently, the Internet) work.
A Personal Appeal from Jimmy Wales by Cryacin · 2012-02-10 19:05 · Score: 4, Funny

I'm just waiting for the personal appeal to boycott Godaddy.

--
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
1. Re:A Personal Appeal from Jimmy Wales by bky1701 · 2012-02-10 21:01 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  "Hi, I'm Jimbo. I'm going to leave my face on every page until GoDaddy goes out of business. You know what to do. Thank you for your support."
  
  --
  Great Intellect...
2. Re:A Personal Appeal from Jimmy Wales by hairyfeet · 2012-02-10 21:13 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I'd just like to say../wipes away tear/...that I'd like to thank the little HTML nerd that made the ABP code that made Jimbo's ugly ass mug finally disappear from Wikipedia forever! Bless your little nerdy heart!
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
3. Re:A Personal Appeal from Jimmy Wales by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-10 21:38 · Score: 1
  
  I'd just like to say../wipes away tear/...that I'd like to thank the little HTML nerd that made the ABP code that made Jimbo's ugly ass mug finally disappear from Wikipedia forever! Bless your little nerdy heart!
  Seconded! Is it ironic that I donated to ABP as thanks for getting rid of Jimmy's appeal for money?
Have you ever tried to switch from GoDaddy?? by ukemike · 2012-02-10 19:17 · Score: 5, Informative

Have you ever tried to switch from GoDaddy? I'm sure they're just having difficultly figuring out HOW to unregister from GoDaddy. It took me about 5 tries over the course of three months and I only had one domain to deal with.

--
-- QED
1. Re:Have you ever tried to switch from GoDaddy?? by Microlith · 2012-02-10 19:37 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Funny, I had a domain that was registered with GoDaddy for 9 years and I was swapped over to Gandi.net within an hour or less.
2. Re:Have you ever tried to switch from GoDaddy?? by thatskinnyguy · 2012-02-10 19:44 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I had to look it up. But once I found a reliable source I did a batch transfer. http://help.godaddy.com/article/3560 lol
  
  --
  The game.
3. Re:Have you ever tried to switch from GoDaddy?? by Frankie70 · 2012-02-10 23:06 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I'm sure they're just having difficultly figuring out HOW to unregister from GoDaddy.
  Isn't there a Wikipedia article on how to unregister from GoDaddy?
4. Re:Have you ever tried to switch from GoDaddy?? by gweihir · 2012-02-10 23:12 · Score: 1
  
  No problems here. I tried a domain I use for testing first, no issues at all moving it to namecheap. That was after GoDaddy sabotaged them and they called GoDaddy out on it though. Moved my other 3 domains a few days later, again no issues at all.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
5. Re:Have you ever tried to switch from GoDaddy?? by vinlud · 2012-02-11 00:36 · Score: 1
  
  But did you request that change? :-)
  
  --
  Repeat after me: We are all individuals
6. Re:Have you ever tried to switch from GoDaddy?? by marcosdumay · 2012-02-11 01:11 · Score: 1
  
  There was, but it was deemed not relevant, and erased.
  
  --
  Rethinking email
"Wikipedia Hasn't Forgiven GoDaddy" by thatskinnyguy · 2012-02-10 19:43 · Score: 1

And nor have I. I've transferred all of my domains and cancelled all services I had through them. This was not without great expense, but fuck them. I would rather give my money to someone that doesn't want to act as a cop.

--
The game.
Jimmy Wales is holding out .... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-10 20:38 · Score: 1

For a blow job from Danica Patrick. Based on the commercials he figures he's got a good shot.
1. Re:Jimmy Wales is holding out .... by Richy_T · 2012-02-11 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  He may be waiting a while. "W" is towards the end of the alphabet.
Re:Fun, but... by Mashiki · 2012-02-10 20:41 · Score: 2

Oddly enough you don't need to be President to destroy a restaurants reputation(or anything's reputation). Hell, you don't even need to be important. You just need to know important people, or be close enough to important people to do it. I know that whole six degrees or four degrees of separation thing is fine and dandy but it does work.
I've seen it in action on more than one occasion where businesses were blackballed by an entire community based on the word of mouth of two people who were effectively nobodies, but had friends of friends who were well known.

--
Om, nomnomnom...
Re:I won't be donating to Wikipedia by TapeCutter · 2012-02-10 20:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

I though you had staked out the moral high ground very neatly, but in the last paragraph you went all self-indulgence about WP and fell back to the level of choosing sides based on personal prejudice, like the rest of us mere mortals.

The fact is that most people believe they are doing TheRightThing(TM) most of the time. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Ivan the terrible, OBL, George Washington, you, me, grandma, and the wiggles, did not get to where they did by believing what they were doing was evil. For example if you could ask OBL what he did with his life he would probably tell you with genuine sincerity that he spent it "fighting evil". So from my POV good intentions are not a valid excuse for supporting racketeering via congressional decree, particularly for a corporation one would expect has the expertise to build decision trees that would likely foresee the potential harm. If it wasn't on their decision tree before all the hoohaa, it is now.

Being generous I'd say GD displayed admirable self-skepticisim on the issue. Being cynical I'd say GD are like any other company, what they fear most is becoming a public pariah.

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
This is not like moving your blog's DNS by David+Gerard · 2012-02-10 22:50 · Score: 3, Informative

People don't seem to get that for a seriously popular site that must not go down, it's just not the same class of phenomenon as picking a registrar more or less at random (the same process by which people ended up on GoDaddy in the first place) to move your blog's DNS to. It's literally taken weeks to make absolutely sure that the transition damn well will go smoothly. This on top of, like, the actual work the WMF is supposed to do. AIUI, there should be an announcement next week or so.

--
http://rocknerd.co.uk
1. Re:This is not like moving your blog's DNS by Richy_T · 2012-02-11 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  Even with that, it's still not a big issue. Just with a company like that, I'm sure there's a bunch of bureaucracy to go through and other things that are higher priority.
2. Re:This is not like moving your blog's DNS by David+Gerard · 2012-02-11 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed - such as the other WIkipedia SOPA protest, which I understand had some small effectiveness.
  
  --
  http://rocknerd.co.uk
Probably not an easy process by maroberts · 2012-02-10 22:51 · Score: 1

I presume that if Wikipedia moves its domain name registrations, it is probably also doing some due diligence to assure itself that any company it does work with can provide both the level of service and also has policies that are roughly in line with its views.
I'm not sure what the technical difficulty is, because GoDaddy only appears to provide its domain name registrations, not provide the Wikimedia servers themselves, which appear to be in colocation facilities. Maybe someone can explain if there are any such issues??
Maybe Wikipedia could establish its own domain name registrar? The fixed cost seems to be only about $4000.....

--
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
1. Re:Probably not an easy process by David+Gerard · 2012-02-10 23:15 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, doing it right is more important than doing it instantly. Also, Wikimedia's been a bit busy, what with the end of the fundraiser and another anti-SOPA protest that got just a bit of attention.
  
  --
  http://rocknerd.co.uk
To summarize what Wikipedia is doing... by idbeholda · 2012-02-10 23:40 · Score: 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IV1zul2aCM8

Obviously, they've bitten off a little more than they can chew with their threat to drop GoDaddy.
GoDaddy... by Old+Sparky · 2012-02-11 02:10 · Score: 1

...the Best Buy of the internet.
1. Re:GoDaddy... by Xtifr · 2012-02-11 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  You know what? I'm shocked to find myself saying this--I didn't even think it was possible--but...I think you just insulted Best Buy!
Before the primaries even got to my state by tepples · 2012-02-11 05:50 · Score: 1

Primary for the best candidate you can find (a lot of people ignore this step, and then go on to bemoan that they only have two choices in the general election)
In 2008, my preferred candidate was mathematically eliminated before the primaries even got to my state.

Non-federal politics matter a whole lot
The article is about copyright law, which is exclusively federal. How do non-federal politics matter to copyright? Or are you talking about the option of somehow getting three-fourths of the states to put substantive limits on Congress's power under the copyright clause?
Yea, SOPA aside.... by drunkennewfiemidget · 2012-02-11 09:04 · Score: 1

I don't even know how those clowns are in business. Reprehensibly evil company, shitty customer service, run by morons, idiotic ad campaigns....
These corp apologize are hollow by bussdriver · 2012-02-11 09:18 · Score: 1

When a corp apologizes, its the PR or marketing dept providing cover for the management's agenda. When they become activists on something that is not a misstep where even an honest apology can be believed because it reveals the agenda. They continue after being discovered with better cover or by alternative means; sometimes nothing changes except some money is put into PR cover.

--
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
seriously, don't try to defend Bob Parsons by Onymous+Coward · 2012-02-11 10:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

Bob Parsons on Guantamo Bay:
"The interrogation techniques at Gitmo are very mild."
(Note from Wikipedia: By May 2011 there had been at least six suicides and hundreds of suicide attempts in GuantÃnamo that are in public knowledge.)
"Key prisoners at Gitmo still have not talked -- because our interrogation methods are so weak."
(Are we really going to get into a sincere discussion about the efficacy of torture? What about we pause first at the idea of whether it's ethical?)
"Given the type of individuals we have incarcerated at Gitmo (all of them would love to gouge out your eyes-"
(including children and old men?)
Bob Parsons is the ugliest face of America. Hateful and uninformed, but pushing to make things work the way he thinks they should. Don't be like Bob. And don't empower him with your money.