3 ms·
Squatter is a derogatory term, and I would lump in anyone who intentionally buys a domain with no intent to use it other than to sell it at an increased profit
by mattwdelong 15y ago
Squatter is a derogatory term, and I would lump in anyone who intentionally buys a domain with no intent to use it other than to sell it at an increased profit margin. I guess you and me differ here, you may think it's okay and perhaps it's the market at play, but I think it's just sleazy way to make money. Squatting has made it nearly impossible to come up with a decent brand. This is just my opinion, you don't have to agree with it and you're well within your right to squat on domains, but you can't really argue semantics here when it's entirely opinionated.
- larrys 15y agoYou're assuming that if the "squatter" hadn't bought the name it would be available for you to use exactly when you wanted to use it. It's also possible that someone would buy it and use it for a business or personal use and then it would actually either not be available at all at any price for you or you'd have to pay more money for the name then a squatter would have charged. Here's another different example. Someone buys up land near a proposed hiway exit. And then they hold out until a fast food chain wants to buy the land for the restaurant and pay the price that a large corporation can pay for that type of land. Somebody made money on that transaction. But the small restaurant is upset because "all the good land is taken by squatters and I can't locate my restaurant there because I can't pay the price what gives them the right to charge me all that money.". Does that make sense?
- christoff 15y agoYea and explorers made it hard to come up with new countries Wake up