3 ms·

Ok, why the poison? Maybe the owner simply wanted to do something cool. It's a better life for the domain to be used for the movie, more people will enjoy it an

Ok, why the poison? Maybe the owner simply wanted to do something cool. It's a better life for the domain to be used for the movie, more people will enjoy it and you get some toys and some bragging rights. It's an URL, not a wife. You can give it up simply if you want to be nice. You don't _have_ to, of course, and that's important, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't if you feel like it.

bad_user 17y ago
Shit, I upvoted you by mistake ... now I have to give a response. > Ok, why the poison? Maybe the owner simply wanted to do something cool. So doing something cool means intruding on other people's rights? The threshold must be getting really low these days. Really, people should start paying attention to the online world, and what does "property" mean in such a context. And if your online presence on a social network is so fragile (since, after all, Facebook is a business and the users don't really have lots of implicit rights) ... than there should be national campaigns against it (after all, your online profile being mismanaged could cause some people more harm than smoking, so why the discrimination?) ... not to mention that people think of Facebook as a "common carrier" which couldn't be further from the truth. Isn't it easier to just play nice and stop acting like a douche bag? > It's an URL, not a wife. It isn't just any URL, it's the link to your online profile. Your friends might have you bookmarked, Google might have you indexed by that URL. It's like saying domain names like "sex.com" aren't worth anything. Well they do.
- radu_floricica 17y ago
  Thanks for the upvote! ;) I think we have a misunderstanding here. First thing to clarify, I think, is whether the owner of the "avtr" name gave it up willingly. If he didn't, the discussion it closed: it was at best bullyish. But what I understood from the article is that it was mutual: > ... but I wanted to explore opportunities to work with you to acquire the name. In the past, we have offered product in exchange for social domain names. One case in mind was for the new movie Avatar , we were able to give promotional items to the owner of twitter.com/avtr for Coke Zero. I read this as a transaction. Now, the GP is still very very upset. Personally, I think it simply isn't GP's business what the avtr owner did with his domain. It's very much like Richard Stallman berating you rudely in public for buying commercial software. His ideals, just like GP's, should not dictate what one does with his property, time and money. If the GP thinks offering "useless plastic crap" was an offence, he's free to reject such an offer whenever it's made to him. But I do not understand why we should all align to his standards and refuse transactions we may find profitable or charitable or just the right thing to do. Not to mention that a promotional item can easily be anything from a t-shirt to a bike or a car. Now again, if I misunderstood something I apologize. But I find the GP to be the one trying to push things here, not the big corporation.

bad_user 17y ago

Shit, I upvoted you by mistake ... now I have to give a response. > Ok, why the poison? Maybe the owner simply wanted to do something cool. So doing something cool means intruding on other people's rights? The threshold must be getting really low these days. Really, people should start paying attention to the online world, and what does "property" mean in such a context. And if your online presence on a social network is so fragile (since, after all, Facebook is a business and the users don't really have lots of implicit rights) ... than there should be national campaigns against it (after all, your online profile being mismanaged could cause some people more harm than smoking, so why the discrimination?) ... not to mention that people think of Facebook as a "common carrier" which couldn't be further from the truth. Isn't it easier to just play nice and stop acting like a douche bag? > It's an URL, not a wife. It isn't just any URL, it's the link to your online profile. Your friends might have you bookmarked, Google might have you indexed by that URL. It's like saying domain names like "sex.com" aren't worth anything. Well they do.

radu_floricica 17y ago
Thanks for the upvote! ;) I think we have a misunderstanding here. First thing to clarify, I think, is whether the owner of the "avtr" name gave it up willingly. If he didn't, the discussion it closed: it was at best bullyish. But what I understood from the article is that it was mutual: > ... but I wanted to explore opportunities to work with you to acquire the name. In the past, we have offered product in exchange for social domain names. One case in mind was for the new movie Avatar , we were able to give promotional items to the owner of twitter.com/avtr for Coke Zero. I read this as a transaction. Now, the GP is still very very upset. Personally, I think it simply isn't GP's business what the avtr owner did with his domain. It's very much like Richard Stallman berating you rudely in public for buying commercial software. His ideals, just like GP's, should not dictate what one does with his property, time and money. If the GP thinks offering "useless plastic crap" was an offence, he's free to reject such an offer whenever it's made to him. But I do not understand why we should all align to his standards and refuse transactions we may find profitable or charitable or just the right thing to do. Not to mention that a promotional item can easily be anything from a t-shirt to a bike or a car. Now again, if I misunderstood something I apologize. But I find the GP to be the one trying to push things here, not the big corporation.