3 ms·

People like to think that generic domain names are somehow common property or something, and anyone holding that property for profit is somehow evil. It’s as i

People like to think that generic domain names are somehow common property or something, and anyone holding that property for profit is somehow evil. It’s as if someone bought the lot across from your house, and then sold it for a profit and you say “Hey! That’s next door to me... they are evil to hold or sell it.. what if my friends/parents, etc want to live there!?” Why do people think generic names shouldn’t be priced at what the market demands. And with name domains... who says you get that name when there are probably tons of other people sharing your exact name. Should you get a house on Smith Dr, just because you share that last name? Stop treating generic domains like no one should own them... they’re valuable internet real estate, and they deserve to be priced accordingly.

markdown 7y ago
> People like to think that generic domain names are somehow common property or something, and anyone holding that property for profit is somehow evil. Buying property anywhere and then sitting on it without developing it is a negative for everyone in that community, so of course its "evil" and frowned upon. > It’s as if someone bought the lot across from your house, and then sold it for a profit and you say “Hey! That’s next door to me... they are evil to hold or sell it.. what if my friends/parents, etc want to live there!?” If that person bought the lot with no intention of ever building on it... you're exactly right! That's terrible, and most developments strongly discourage this sort of situation by requiring the buyer to build a house to a certain standard within a certain period of time, all to avoid empty lots all over the place. > And with name domains... who says you get that name when there are probably tons of other people sharing your exact name. Nobody. Nobody says that. What people say is that the first person with an intention of building something on it should get it, and not just the richest person with that name. Squatters prevent anyone using the domain until someone with a lot of money to spend shows up.
- crazydoggers 7y ago
  You’re talking about housing developments where the owner of the land requires builders to build certain numbers of houses. That’s because they are in the process of developing it already and want it to be appealing to home buyers. Prior to that the land was owned, probably for a long period of time, before the area was deemed worthy of development. Do you really think there are just empty tracks of land waiting for the first buyer... that are held by whom??? No... someone took a risk and bought the land speculating that eventually the land would be wanted by someone to develop something on it. Same as purchasing a domain, paying the yearly fees... and hoping eventually some one will want to develop on it. And if it’s beach front property... the equivalent of a nice domain name... it’s gonna go for a lot more. Again, there’s no public trust or anything to hold property just in case someone wants to develop on it, because who decides who gets to use it? Instead there are private investors taking a risk to carry the property, possibly for a loss. > Nobody. Nobody says that. What people say is that the first person with an intention of building something on it should get it, and not just the richest person with that name. Squatters prevent anyone using the domain until someone with a lot of money to spend shows up. That’s some utopia!! Who decides if what you’re building is valid or useful? What if I just display “hello” on the page? How about relevant ads related to the domain? What if I want to display my favorite music... what if my son just wants to post pictures of his LEGO’s? Who defines the line?? You’re gonna say “hello” or “ads” doesn’t count but pictures of Legos do? Why? You or some cabal get to dictate what speech is relevant? Your method of handing domains to the first person with “intention” quickly falls into abuse, corruption, censorship, etc. I’d rather have a free market, thanks.
  - kkarakk 7y ago
    Free market is how you've gotten cities where natives can't afford to buy property since non-natives(mostly chinese investors) own all the property and refuse to sell or rent at reasonable rates. I think the free market concept has fundamentally failed for non-renewable/expandable resources and should be recognized as such.

markdown 7y ago

> People like to think that generic domain names are somehow common property or something, and anyone holding that property for profit is somehow evil. Buying property anywhere and then sitting on it without developing it is a negative for everyone in that community, so of course its "evil" and frowned upon. > It’s as if someone bought the lot across from your house, and then sold it for a profit and you say “Hey! That’s next door to me... they are evil to hold or sell it.. what if my friends/parents, etc want to live there!?” If that person bought the lot with no intention of ever building on it... you're exactly right! That's terrible, and most developments strongly discourage this sort of situation by requiring the buyer to build a house to a certain standard within a certain period of time, all to avoid empty lots all over the place. > And with name domains... who says you get that name when there are probably tons of other people sharing your exact name. Nobody. Nobody says that. What people say is that the first person with an intention of building something on it should get it, and not just the richest person with that name. Squatters prevent anyone using the domain until someone with a lot of money to spend shows up.

crazydoggers 7y ago
You’re talking about housing developments where the owner of the land requires builders to build certain numbers of houses. That’s because they are in the process of developing it already and want it to be appealing to home buyers. Prior to that the land was owned, probably for a long period of time, before the area was deemed worthy of development. Do you really think there are just empty tracks of land waiting for the first buyer... that are held by whom??? No... someone took a risk and bought the land speculating that eventually the land would be wanted by someone to develop something on it. Same as purchasing a domain, paying the yearly fees... and hoping eventually some one will want to develop on it. And if it’s beach front property... the equivalent of a nice domain name... it’s gonna go for a lot more. Again, there’s no public trust or anything to hold property just in case someone wants to develop on it, because who decides who gets to use it? Instead there are private investors taking a risk to carry the property, possibly for a loss. > Nobody. Nobody says that. What people say is that the first person with an intention of building something on it should get it, and not just the richest person with that name. Squatters prevent anyone using the domain until someone with a lot of money to spend shows up. That’s some utopia!! Who decides if what you’re building is valid or useful? What if I just display “hello” on the page? How about relevant ads related to the domain? What if I want to display my favorite music... what if my son just wants to post pictures of his LEGO’s? Who defines the line?? You’re gonna say “hello” or “ads” doesn’t count but pictures of Legos do? Why? You or some cabal get to dictate what speech is relevant? Your method of handing domains to the first person with “intention” quickly falls into abuse, corruption, censorship, etc. I’d rather have a free market, thanks.
- kkarakk 7y ago
  Free market is how you've gotten cities where natives can't afford to buy property since non-natives(mostly chinese investors) own all the property and refuse to sell or rent at reasonable rates. I think the free market concept has fundamentally failed for non-renewable/expandable resources and should be recognized as such.