> Otherwise it’s exactly the same as a monopoly. Oh come on, let's not kid ourselves here. There are _plenty_ of other TLDs to choose from. Google owns .dev, t

> Otherwise it’s exactly the same as a monopoly. Oh come on, let's not kid ourselves here. There are _plenty_ of other TLDs to choose from. Google owns .dev, they can do what they want with it. The debate of whether a company should own a TLD like Google does is another question entirely. > p.s. and no, I sure wouldn’t like my landlord to 70x my rent. Like from say 1,000/mo to 70,000/mo ? That’s like totally cool then right? No it's not cool; that's totally exploitative. But my landlord sure could do that if they wanted to because they own the building. If my landlord thinks someone will pay $70,000/mo for my unit why shouldn't they be allowed to see that profit? Google definitely should not be treating their customers like this, especially considering that they're burning bridges for such little income.