3 ms·
According to the British government, it receives no revenue from the .io domain, which owned by a private equity company. So if that is the case, the .io domain
by atombender 2y ago
According to the British government, it receives no revenue from the .io domain, which owned by a private equity company. So if that is the case, the .io domain does not fund ethnic cleansing.
As to Diego Garcia, my understanding is that Mauritius will be given back sovereignty of it, as well as the other islands, and that the UK and US governments will merely lease the island of Diego Garcia. This is not an unusual arrangement. The UK and US have military bases around the world on foreign territory, to the exclusion of the local population.
Not so sure if this qualifies as ethnic cleansing when nobody is being forcibly removed from anywhere, since they're not actually there.
- defrost 2y agoWhile "ethnic cleansing" has overtones of torture an or murder, "forcibly removed" is accurate and occurred from 1968 to the removal of the last Chagossians in 1973.
- atombender 2y agoBut we they were already removed, then any revenue from .io does not support it, since it already happened. And while the continued existence of the UK/US base prevents Chagossians from living there, that seems unrelated to the question of sovereignty; for example, the US Air Force base in Ramstein also prevents Germans from living in the territory occupied by the base's footprint, but nobody calls this ethnic cleansing.
- defrost 2y ago> but nobody calls this ethnic cleansing. Perhaps a point you might make to someone who used the term? Were Germans forcibly removed from Ramstein?
- hulitu 2y ago> According to the British government, it receives no revenue from the .io domain, which owned by a private equity company And this company operates out of jurisdiction, I presume. /s