5 ms·

I've written a little bit about why NameCheap is so beloved by scammers. See https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2021/05/why-do-scammers-love-namecheap/ https://shkspr.mob

by edent 5y ago

I've written a little bit about why NameCheap is so beloved by scammers. See https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2021/05/why-do-scammers-love-namecheap/ https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2021/05/why-do-scammers-love-namech... They allow anonymous payments and they're slow to respond to takedown requests. They've started monitoring registrations now - so you can't register domains like `hsbc-co-uk.biz` without going through some extra checks.

bryanrasmussen 5y ago
>They allow anonymous payments and they're slow to respond to takedown requests. things that might also be liked by non-scammers.
- TheFreim 5y ago
  I love being able to use anonymous payments and I don't do anything malicious.
- wpietri 5y ago
  Non-scammers is a pretty broad set of people, most of whom are not interested in that. Who specifically do you have in mind?
  - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
    people who set up websites that they don't want tracked back to them - historically speaking gay people might want to be anonymous in all sorts of scenarios and for all sorts of reasons. I'm working helping out an artistic collective in which the various members are anonymous to various degrees. There may need to be anonymity in paying for services - this is an obvious necessity nowadays - for example the whole recent situation over the 'I sexually identify as an attack Helicopter' story https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Sexually_Identify_as_an_Attack_Helicopter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Sexually_Identify_as_an_Atta... so - off the top of my head: often abused or oppressed minorities. artists. on edit: obv. slow to takedown is important for artists or controversial people as well.
    - wpietri 5y ago
      Historical gay people aren't buying websites today. And plenty of registrars already allow private registration. Artists who remain anonymous typically solve the problem through having a trusted representative. E.g., someone like yourself. So I don't think any of your examples hold up.
      - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
        >Historical gay people aren't buying websites today. it's hard for me to take that statement as having been made in good faith but at any rate when I say historically I do not mean if someone was building a website in 1950 they sure would want to be anonymous I mean that throughout history, up until the present day there are people who want to remain anonymous who are not scammers and used gay people as an example - which gay people sometimes want to remain anonymously gay but express themselves even today! And then I linked the description of a story published last year in which the anonymous author was harassed over sexual issues. Given the example I linked to then >Artists who remain anonymous typically solve the problem through having a trusted representative. E.g., someone like yourself. It might be that representatives of controversial artists or the technical help for such might like some level of anonymity themselves, given that anonymous writers can receive death threats it seems that public representatives of such can receive them as well.
        wpietri 5y ago
        I asked you for examples. It was entirely in good faith for me to point out that your first example was not actually an example. Fall was already anonymous, and her anonymity was protected by the editor, just as I described. So anonymous payment for a web presence, one that she didn't have, wouldn't have helped here. And as you point out, the anonymity didn't prevent her from getting criticism (not harassment as far as I know); indeed, one of the lessons of the Fall incident seems to be that poorly managed anonymity breeds unnecessary suspicion. As to your last "might be", anything might be. What I'm looking for is an example of where the social harm that can come through anonymity, specifically anonymous payment, is worth putting up with to provide some social good. So far I'm still looking. As it is, I'll note that even your well-performed outrage over fears of harassment doesn't is out of place here, as harassers often make vigorous use of anonymity. E.g., look at Near, the latest addition to the KiwiFarms kill count.
julianlam 5y ago
That just sounds like they maintain an exclusion list that triggers a manual review or additional checks. Nice, but it's effectiveness depends on the completeness of the list.

by edent 5y ago

bryanrasmussen 5y ago

>They allow anonymous payments and they're slow to respond to takedown requests. things that might also be liked by non-scammers.

TheFreim 5y ago
I love being able to use anonymous payments and I don't do anything malicious.
wpietri 5y ago
Non-scammers is a pretty broad set of people, most of whom are not interested in that. Who specifically do you have in mind?
- bryanrasmussen 5y ago
  people who set up websites that they don't want tracked back to them - historically speaking gay people might want to be anonymous in all sorts of scenarios and for all sorts of reasons. I'm working helping out an artistic collective in which the various members are anonymous to various degrees. There may need to be anonymity in paying for services - this is an obvious necessity nowadays - for example the whole recent situation over the 'I sexually identify as an attack Helicopter' story https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Sexually_Identify_as_an_Attack_Helicopter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Sexually_Identify_as_an_Atta... so - off the top of my head: often abused or oppressed minorities. artists. on edit: obv. slow to takedown is important for artists or controversial people as well.
  - wpietri 5y ago
    Historical gay people aren't buying websites today. And plenty of registrars already allow private registration. Artists who remain anonymous typically solve the problem through having a trusted representative. E.g., someone like yourself. So I don't think any of your examples hold up.
    - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
      >Historical gay people aren't buying websites today. it's hard for me to take that statement as having been made in good faith but at any rate when I say historically I do not mean if someone was building a website in 1950 they sure would want to be anonymous I mean that throughout history, up until the present day there are people who want to remain anonymous who are not scammers and used gay people as an example - which gay people sometimes want to remain anonymously gay but express themselves even today! And then I linked the description of a story published last year in which the anonymous author was harassed over sexual issues. Given the example I linked to then >Artists who remain anonymous typically solve the problem through having a trusted representative. E.g., someone like yourself. It might be that representatives of controversial artists or the technical help for such might like some level of anonymity themselves, given that anonymous writers can receive death threats it seems that public representatives of such can receive them as well.
      - wpietri 5y ago
        I asked you for examples. It was entirely in good faith for me to point out that your first example was not actually an example. Fall was already anonymous, and her anonymity was protected by the editor, just as I described. So anonymous payment for a web presence, one that she didn't have, wouldn't have helped here. And as you point out, the anonymity didn't prevent her from getting criticism (not harassment as far as I know); indeed, one of the lessons of the Fall incident seems to be that poorly managed anonymity breeds unnecessary suspicion. As to your last "might be", anything might be. What I'm looking for is an example of where the social harm that can come through anonymity, specifically anonymous payment, is worth putting up with to provide some social good. So far I'm still looking. As it is, I'll note that even your well-performed outrage over fears of harassment doesn't is out of place here, as harassers often make vigorous use of anonymity. E.g., look at Near, the latest addition to the KiwiFarms kill count.

julianlam 5y ago

That just sounds like they maintain an exclusion list that triggers a manual review or additional checks. Nice, but it's effectiveness depends on the completeness of the list.