2 ms·
GP said "developing or poorer", not "literal poorest". You're creating a strawman to shoot it down. I can only speak for myself, but if prices doubled overnigh
by approxim8ion 6y ago
GP said "developing or poorer", not "literal poorest". You're creating a strawman to shoot it down.
I can only speak for myself, but if prices doubled overnight, owning a domain would not be feasible for me because I don't conduct business or earn income on the domain I own, and the only reason I went for this fairly obscure TLD is because it was the cheapest decent one I could afford. Some of us aren't "businesses", and unless you think we don't deserve a corner of the internet, you'll find there's tons of us.
- carmen_sandiego 6y agoWell talk about strawmanning, who said you couldn’t have a corner of the internet? There are plenty of TLDs that aren’t subject to the issues .com has. Sorry but yes, if you’re not making enough money from your .com to pay (say) $50/year, I think it’s perfectly fine that you can’t use it for your random hobby project. The lost value that comes from .com being messed up is so much greater.
- approxim8ion 6y agoI thought your first two sentences were independent of each other and that you were talking about all TLDs. Sorry, probably a language barrier thing. .com is very clearly commercial so what I had to say isn't applicable to it (which is why I mentioned I use a relatively obscure TLD like .site or .xyz).
- carmen_sandiego 6y agoOh, no, I just meant businesses using .com for commercial purposes. Sorry for the misunderstanding.