> I am flabbergasted at why fb would allow punycode domains (especially when the domain listed under the ad was the 'real' domain). The problem is that there a

> I am flabbergasted at why fb would allow punycode domains (especially when the domain listed under the ad was the 'real' domain). The problem is that there are actual, real sites that advertise on Facebook that use Punycode domains. e.g. Bücher.de for a while did so, although now their punycode domain redirects to buecher.de they still use the brandname "Bücher.de" everywhere in their advertising. And then there's sites like Flüge.de where a competitor of them owns the non-punycode domain Fluege.de, so of course they can't stop using the punycode domain, but you also wouldn't want visitors to see the ugly punycode domain and get confused. Requiring non-punycode domains is a very anglomerican view of the web. It's as arbitrary as restricting domains to be only in hexadecimal. EDIT: I originally included links to the sites in this comment, but every time I try to edit them in, HN just responds with Error 502 - if I don't include them, everything works fine. So you'll need to copy-paste them to the URL bar