3 ms·
That all just seems strangely perverse. The author objects to outside control, yet is at the mercy of their domain registrar, to whom the same set of problems
by NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
That all just seems strangely perverse.
The author objects to outside control, yet is at the mercy of their domain registrar, to whom the same set of problems seems to apply, as well as their hosting provider.
If the author objects so much to outside control, they might think on the fact that offering their content unencrypted allows it to be rewritten by ISPs to introduce ads or other content outside their editorial control while still inside the network.
- throwawayay02 5y agoI think it is likely he hosts it himself. And it is a stretch to include the domain registrar since the service it provides is only one of addressing and not content.
- NovemberWhiskey 5y agoUnless he's directly peering at an exchange into his own datacenter (I doubt it), then he's not hosting it by himself - he's depending on a provider for connectivity and hosting. I don't see what distinction you're trying make between "addressing" and "content". In either case he would be dependent on a third party (that he may have to pay for their services) to keep his site online. He renews his certificate every two years, or his site effectively goes offline. He renews his domain every two years, or his site effectively goes offline. What's the difference supposed to be?