4 ms·

I have purchased a number of websites from individuals who have had a private Whois or no means of contact listed on their website. It requires a significant am

by hahla 8y ago

I have purchased a number of websites from individuals who have had a private Whois or no means of contact listed on their website. It requires a significant amount of sleuthing but the point is these people all sold their sites anyway. You may not ever be actively looking to sell but it’s short sighted to not provide a means of contact for an asset that has value and can be sold.

fwn 8y ago
You might find it short sighted, but that does not mean that people shouldn't have a choice. I get offers for my domains, all unwanted. If I at some point decide to sell one of those to one of them, all the cold approaches from the past don't suddenly get legitimized. edit: as I'm writing this, I remember that this is quite similar to the selling of social media IDs. Some random crypto start up decided that they should try to bully me to sell them my three letter Twitter handle. Really annoying.
jek0 8y ago
The same reasoning should then apply to everything you own: there should be an organization forcing you to put your email address or phone number on your car, on your house, ... Even if you have no plans to sell those assets, let people contact you if they want to buy them (or help you sell them).
- otterlicious 8y ago
  My county assessor's office maintains a database of property owners in my area and their contact information. They have a convenient website where I can access this information at any time. My state department of motor vehicles maintains a database of vehicles registered in the state and the contact information for their owners. While they do not have a convenient website for querying this data themselves, they make it available to third parties in bulk, and I can obtain individual records for those third parties convieniently using their websites. Both these databases are mandated by my state legislature. So it seems the same reasoning does apply.
  - mmt 8y ago
    One difference is that the state also provides title to these assets, with all the legal protection that this does (or does not) imply. Another difference is that this contact information does not, AFAIK, include recipient-paid [1] contact methods such as mobile phone (including text) and e-mail. Also, methods such as phone are generally considered far more intrusive that, for example, paper mail. [1] nowadays this is mosty nominal, but we're not quite at zero

by hahla 8y ago

fwn 8y ago

You might find it short sighted, but that does not mean that people shouldn't have a choice. I get offers for my domains, all unwanted. If I at some point decide to sell one of those to one of them, all the cold approaches from the past don't suddenly get legitimized. edit: as I'm writing this, I remember that this is quite similar to the selling of social media IDs. Some random crypto start up decided that they should try to bully me to sell them my three letter Twitter handle. Really annoying.

jek0 8y ago

The same reasoning should then apply to everything you own: there should be an organization forcing you to put your email address or phone number on your car, on your house, ... Even if you have no plans to sell those assets, let people contact you if they want to buy them (or help you sell them).

otterlicious 8y ago
My county assessor's office maintains a database of property owners in my area and their contact information. They have a convenient website where I can access this information at any time. My state department of motor vehicles maintains a database of vehicles registered in the state and the contact information for their owners. While they do not have a convenient website for querying this data themselves, they make it available to third parties in bulk, and I can obtain individual records for those third parties convieniently using their websites. Both these databases are mandated by my state legislature. So it seems the same reasoning does apply.
- mmt 8y ago
  One difference is that the state also provides title to these assets, with all the legal protection that this does (or does not) imply. Another difference is that this contact information does not, AFAIK, include recipient-paid [1] contact methods such as mobile phone (including text) and e-mail. Also, methods such as phone are generally considered far more intrusive that, for example, paper mail. [1] nowadays this is mosty nominal, but we're not quite at zero