5 ms·

Something has gone seriously wrong when one of our original TLDs, which, from my perspective, should be considered sacrosanct elements of the internet with hist

Something has gone seriously wrong when one of our original TLDs, which, from my perspective, should be considered sacrosanct elements of the internet with historical importance, are able to be sold off by interloping individuals, who, for some bizarre reason, feel that they are entitled to capitalize on these TLDs, and who do so purely with their own self-interest at heart. I'm really just disappointed and angered that this happened.

TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago
Alas the Internet was created in a capitalist world, and capitalism loves rent-seeking.
- kortilla 7y ago
  Rent seeking would require the new owner to not really be doing anything (I.e. not operating the tld nameservers, etc) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking Just paying recurring fees (e.g. paying rent to your landlord) does not match the definition of rent-seeking.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - Gabrielfair 7y ago
    You are right, however I think rent-seeking in this context is that the owner is able to extract more money without producing any more value. So it would meet the definition. This usage of the term has become quite common when referring to political rent-seeking.
    - TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago
      Yes, that's what I meant by it.
  - Retric 7y ago
    Operating the .org domain is not creating new wealth. It’s the same as a VA selling toll roads or someone buys old songs. They all spend some money maximize their income stream. However, that spending is not creating something useful. Operations spending is required, but does not generate any long term wealth. You keep cleaning a hotel ever day and it does not get ever cleaner over time the way an actual investment does when you keep investing more money.
    - Barrin92 7y ago
      > that spending is not creating something useful. operators of a domain are essentially stewards of that domain and ensure that it's operated correctly, that there are no duplicates, and that it can be trusted. They do create value in the same way the American bar association does, by establishing and maintaining trust between end-users and providers of a service.
      - colejohnson66 7y ago
        But couldn’t that all be done by a non-profit? You know, the ones that (are the target) buy(er of) the .org domains?
      - jlokier 7y ago
        If that was what people expected the new operators to do, people wouldn't be upset and feel like they are losing the treasured .org. People do not expect the new owners will operate the domain correctly, meaning ensure that the TLD remains available at reasonable prices and conditions to the current types of users.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - scarejunba 7y ago
        Right, right, but that's the same as with the land example usually trotted out. Nothing is ever zero-wealth-creation. It's just that the majority of .org's reputableness comes from the organizations using it and the tenure of the orgs using it. The majority of the growth in .org's wealth will be due to the fact that true wealth creators are participating on it. It's textbook economic rent.
- chaostheory 7y ago
  Would it be any different in a non-capitalist world? If we’re being honest, corruption eventually permeates everything given time. IMO the biggest difference between capitalism and socialism is the massive centralization of power in socialist systems. The effects of corruption tend to be much worse the more power is concentrated. These systems of finite resource distribution are ultimately just hacks to mitigate the real problem: people or individual nodes tend to seek the optimal outcome for themselves even if it’s at the expense of the system as a whole Everyone tends to forget that sociopaths adapt
  - wwright 7y ago
    How do you compare the centralization of a socialist government against the centralization of power among FAANG? Genuine question.
    - chaostheory 7y ago
      In a purely socialist system, all power lies in the government itself. All decisions for resource distribution lies with the government itself. In a capitalist system, power is more distributed between the government and private organizations. The government alone doesn’t get to decide who gets what resources. while these private organizations will collaborate with the gov and vice versa at times, there will always be some tension between the groups since they are constantly competing for power, which results in an adhoc system of checks and balances vs a system of near absolute power IMO we’ve already tried that experiment. It doesn’t work. Pure socialism and pure capitalism only work in ivory towers
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
  - coliveira 7y ago
    Capitalism is a system created by and for sociopaths. It doesn't get much worse than that.
    - 7y ago
matheusmoreira 7y ago
Nothing is sacrosanct to those people. They don't care about the technology like we do, it's just a way for them to make their money. They'll destroy all of it just to get their way. They won't lose any sleep over it. Part of me hopes every TLD gets hit by this so that the exploitation becomes unbearable and people are forced to create a better system. Hopefully we'll end up with something that can't be subverted by these corporates.

TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago

Alas the Internet was created in a capitalist world, and capitalism loves rent-seeking.

kortilla 7y ago
Rent seeking would require the new owner to not really be doing anything (I.e. not operating the tld nameservers, etc) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking Just paying recurring fees (e.g. paying rent to your landlord) does not match the definition of rent-seeking.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- Gabrielfair 7y ago
  You are right, however I think rent-seeking in this context is that the owner is able to extract more money without producing any more value. So it would meet the definition. This usage of the term has become quite common when referring to political rent-seeking.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago
    Yes, that's what I meant by it.
- Retric 7y ago
  Operating the .org domain is not creating new wealth. It’s the same as a VA selling toll roads or someone buys old songs. They all spend some money maximize their income stream. However, that spending is not creating something useful. Operations spending is required, but does not generate any long term wealth. You keep cleaning a hotel ever day and it does not get ever cleaner over time the way an actual investment does when you keep investing more money.
  - Barrin92 7y ago
    > that spending is not creating something useful. operators of a domain are essentially stewards of that domain and ensure that it's operated correctly, that there are no duplicates, and that it can be trusted. They do create value in the same way the American bar association does, by establishing and maintaining trust between end-users and providers of a service.
    - colejohnson66 7y ago
      But couldn’t that all be done by a non-profit? You know, the ones that (are the target) buy(er of) the .org domains?
    - jlokier 7y ago
      If that was what people expected the new operators to do, people wouldn't be upset and feel like they are losing the treasured .org. People do not expect the new owners will operate the domain correctly, meaning ensure that the TLD remains available at reasonable prices and conditions to the current types of users.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - scarejunba 7y ago
      Right, right, but that's the same as with the land example usually trotted out. Nothing is ever zero-wealth-creation. It's just that the majority of .org's reputableness comes from the organizations using it and the tenure of the orgs using it. The majority of the growth in .org's wealth will be due to the fact that true wealth creators are participating on it. It's textbook economic rent.
chaostheory 7y ago
Would it be any different in a non-capitalist world? If we’re being honest, corruption eventually permeates everything given time. IMO the biggest difference between capitalism and socialism is the massive centralization of power in socialist systems. The effects of corruption tend to be much worse the more power is concentrated. These systems of finite resource distribution are ultimately just hacks to mitigate the real problem: people or individual nodes tend to seek the optimal outcome for themselves even if it’s at the expense of the system as a whole Everyone tends to forget that sociopaths adapt
- wwright 7y ago
  How do you compare the centralization of a socialist government against the centralization of power among FAANG? Genuine question.
  - chaostheory 7y ago
    In a purely socialist system, all power lies in the government itself. All decisions for resource distribution lies with the government itself. In a capitalist system, power is more distributed between the government and private organizations. The government alone doesn’t get to decide who gets what resources. while these private organizations will collaborate with the gov and vice versa at times, there will always be some tension between the groups since they are constantly competing for power, which results in an adhoc system of checks and balances vs a system of near absolute power IMO we’ve already tried that experiment. It doesn’t work. Pure socialism and pure capitalism only work in ivory towers
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- coliveira 7y ago
  Capitalism is a system created by and for sociopaths. It doesn't get much worse than that.
  - 7y ago

matheusmoreira 7y ago

Nothing is sacrosanct to those people. They don't care about the technology like we do, it's just a way for them to make their money. They'll destroy all of it just to get their way. They won't lose any sleep over it. Part of me hopes every TLD gets hit by this so that the exploitation becomes unbearable and people are forced to create a better system. Hopefully we'll end up with something that can't be subverted by these corporates.