5 ms·

The issue here is there are incorrect assumptions being made about what is a legitimate use of a domain here. Op seems to be communicating that legitimate use m

The issue here is there are incorrect assumptions being made about what is a legitimate use of a domain here. Op seems to be communicating that legitimate use means having a website of sorts (my interpretation). It's possible the owner is using the domain as an email (just as Op is trying to) without an actual website. Or maybe for other purposes. Similarly, if I use Twitter to log into websites or send messages privately but don't post anything publicly on my Twitter feed, is that not considered a legitimate use because others assume my account is inactive due to no public tweets? It's entirely possible Op's assumptions here are also correct but that doesn't mean it's a good argument for why the owner shouldn't own the domain. I can see why anyone would reasonably have reasons to complain about this (and Op isn't the first person to do so). Being upset at domain squatters isn't new. I'm just not sure I agree that someone not actively using the domain means they should forfeit the rights to it.

teh_klev 6y ago
Ok, the author doesn't take issue with domains that are unavailable because they may be used for things that aren't visible. He takes issue with Domain Squatters, the unfortunately scumbag industry of buying up domains by the barrow load in the hope of making a tidy profit. I'm well aware domain squatters aren't new having lost a domain to one a few years back who then wanted four figures to sell it back to me. I think he has a point and ICANN put the brakes on practices such as "Domain Tasting" to try and address this problem in the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_tasting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_tasting Sure domain squatting specifically to extort money is a legit business, but legit != morally right, kinda like big city commercial landlords.
- enonevets 6y ago
  How does he know the owner originally bought it to squat on it or for some other purpose? Or that he isn’t using it for other purposes that aren’t visible. Just because the owner is willing to sell it now doesn’t imply that (I’m not saying he isn’t a squatter either). You take the stance that maybe folks on this thread didn’t read the post but then selectively ignore the context underlying the argument the Op is making. My point is there are assumptions here that may not be true. Calling the owner here a squatter simply because he feels entitled to the domain because it’s his last name is different than making a statement that squatters in general are toxic (separate from this context). You can’t separate the two and simply ignore the situation here as if he’s making “just” a general statement that squatters are bad. There is a level of entitlement and assumption being made here, or not communicated clearly, that shouldn’t be ignored (for this specific context) just to go broad and argue whether we think squatters are toxic or not. It’d be an entirely different argument if this post was about why domain squatters are toxic. But within this context, you can’t even say with certainty that the owner is in fact a squatter. And that’s before we discuss the issue of domain squatting.
  - teh_klev 6y ago
    Let me spell it out...domain squatters, in the business of buying up large numbers of domains (1000's of them), having well oiled business models and websites to try and fleece you out of an extortionate sum of money. The domains they're selling having no other use than to squat on them for profit from their sale. I don't mean Johnny Internet bloke who acquired a few domains over the years and tries to punt them, I mean the parasitic businesses set up to profit from squatting. Surely I can't be any clearer?
    - enonevets 6y ago
      I heard you the first time. You're missing my point. You are arguing about domain squatters in general. This article is not about domain squatters in general. It's about the owner of quirk.uk leading to the Op making a generalize statement about domain squatters. The two are not equal. Lets say someone posted to HN that Google banned them. Without Google's side of the story, and questioning if there are other details, we take the author's word and assume Google is the bad guy. But it turns out the author was a spammer and Google had good reason to ban the guy. But you don't know that and don't have context for that because none of that was posted in the author's post. Do you just jump the bandwagon and start attacking Google in general ignoring the point the author is making? The same applies here. It's one thing to have a discussion about domain squatters (this is not it). It's an entirely different argument when this is about Op and the owner of a specific domain, leading him to make a generalized statement that none of us can even confirm is true about the owner or not.
      - teh_klev 6y ago
        I hate to break HN guidelines, but I think you need to re-read the article.
        enonevets 6y ago
        I just did. At the very top it says: `I wanted to register quirk.uk, but arsehole domain squatters are getting in the way and making that almost impossible.` Aside from the fact that the domain is now available for sale, it does nothing to prove whether the owner originally got it to squat on it or they got it with a different intended purpose, or if they are using it at all aside from the intention of _now_ selling it. At minimum I think we're discussing two different points on the same post here. But this is going in circles so I'm fine with leaving this be.

teh_klev 6y ago

Ok, the author doesn't take issue with domains that are unavailable because they may be used for things that aren't visible. He takes issue with Domain Squatters, the unfortunately scumbag industry of buying up domains by the barrow load in the hope of making a tidy profit. I'm well aware domain squatters aren't new having lost a domain to one a few years back who then wanted four figures to sell it back to me. I think he has a point and ICANN put the brakes on practices such as "Domain Tasting" to try and address this problem in the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_tasting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_tasting Sure domain squatting specifically to extort money is a legit business, but legit != morally right, kinda like big city commercial landlords.

enonevets 6y ago
How does he know the owner originally bought it to squat on it or for some other purpose? Or that he isn’t using it for other purposes that aren’t visible. Just because the owner is willing to sell it now doesn’t imply that (I’m not saying he isn’t a squatter either). You take the stance that maybe folks on this thread didn’t read the post but then selectively ignore the context underlying the argument the Op is making. My point is there are assumptions here that may not be true. Calling the owner here a squatter simply because he feels entitled to the domain because it’s his last name is different than making a statement that squatters in general are toxic (separate from this context). You can’t separate the two and simply ignore the situation here as if he’s making “just” a general statement that squatters are bad. There is a level of entitlement and assumption being made here, or not communicated clearly, that shouldn’t be ignored (for this specific context) just to go broad and argue whether we think squatters are toxic or not. It’d be an entirely different argument if this post was about why domain squatters are toxic. But within this context, you can’t even say with certainty that the owner is in fact a squatter. And that’s before we discuss the issue of domain squatting.
- teh_klev 6y ago
  Let me spell it out...domain squatters, in the business of buying up large numbers of domains (1000's of them), having well oiled business models and websites to try and fleece you out of an extortionate sum of money. The domains they're selling having no other use than to squat on them for profit from their sale. I don't mean Johnny Internet bloke who acquired a few domains over the years and tries to punt them, I mean the parasitic businesses set up to profit from squatting. Surely I can't be any clearer?
  - enonevets 6y ago
    I heard you the first time. You're missing my point. You are arguing about domain squatters in general. This article is not about domain squatters in general. It's about the owner of quirk.uk leading to the Op making a generalize statement about domain squatters. The two are not equal. Lets say someone posted to HN that Google banned them. Without Google's side of the story, and questioning if there are other details, we take the author's word and assume Google is the bad guy. But it turns out the author was a spammer and Google had good reason to ban the guy. But you don't know that and don't have context for that because none of that was posted in the author's post. Do you just jump the bandwagon and start attacking Google in general ignoring the point the author is making? The same applies here. It's one thing to have a discussion about domain squatters (this is not it). It's an entirely different argument when this is about Op and the owner of a specific domain, leading him to make a generalized statement that none of us can even confirm is true about the owner or not.
    - teh_klev 6y ago
      I hate to break HN guidelines, but I think you need to re-read the article.
      - enonevets 6y ago
        I just did. At the very top it says: `I wanted to register quirk.uk, but arsehole domain squatters are getting in the way and making that almost impossible.` Aside from the fact that the domain is now available for sale, it does nothing to prove whether the owner originally got it to squat on it or they got it with a different intended purpose, or if they are using it at all aside from the intention of _now_ selling it. At minimum I think we're discussing two different points on the same post here. But this is going in circles so I'm fine with leaving this be.