3 ms·
I don’t know about immoral, but it is at the very least a bit sleazy. When I look for domains for side projects, I very rarely have to abandon a name because it
by rafram 6mo ago
I don’t know about immoral, but it is at the very least a bit sleazy. When I look for domains for side projects, I very rarely have to abandon a name because it’s been taken by an actual operational service; it’s almost always because someone is squatting it with a “parking” page filled with sketchy ads that they’re paying almost nothing for. That isn’t doing any good for anyone besides the squatter.
- Dave0X 6mo agoWhy does a practice have to do good for anyone other than the practioner?
- rafram 6mo agoWell, if we're discussing morality, it is generally considered immoral to enrich yourself at the expense of the public good.
- sillysaurusx 6mo agoBut it’s not a public good. .com stands for commercial. It’s literally the opposite of a public good.
- rafram 6mo agoAllowing people to pay a fair price for the resources they need to start a business (rather than paying scalper prices to the bridge trolls who got there first) serves the public good. “For the public good” includes more than just feeding blind orphans.
- cornhole 6mo ago“chattel slavery isn’t bad so long as I am the slave owner”
- acessoproibido 6mo agoA bit strong to compare domain squatting with slavery don't you think?
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]