Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

GoDaddy Follows Google's Lead; No More Registrations In China

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the use-your-health-insurance-number-instead dept.

Censorship 243

phantomfive writes "GoDaddy has announced it will no longer register domain names in China, in response to new requirements that each registrant be photographed, and their business ID number be submitted. GoDaddy's representative said, 'The intent of the procedures appeared, to us, to be based on a desire by the Chinese authorities to exercise increased control over the subject matter of domain name registrations by Chinese nationals.'"

cancel ×

243 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Good. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31602474)

Fuck China and its shit.

Re:Good. (1)

Servaas (1050156) | more than 4 years ago | (#31602568)

And every abroad company that thinks it will get more freedom then the native locals!

Re:Good. (0, Offtopic)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#31603562)

Um..... these new web domain licensing requirements (business ID, photo, et cetera)..... aren't they also being implemented in the US and EU?

Re:Good. (2, Insightful)

religious freak (1005821) | more than 4 years ago | (#31602600)

Plus, it'll be a total change in process and increase costs below the point of profitability for Godaddy

fuck, shit, piss

Re:Good. (1)

clampolo (1159617) | more than 4 years ago | (#31603280)

You're being too harsh. This is all a misunderstanding. They just wanted some Danica Patrick pics to wank off to.

Re:Good. (0, Offtopic)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 4 years ago | (#31603494)

Why? Even if you limited it to female athletes she wouldn't be in my top 50 choices.

Re:Good. (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#31603596)

(1) Danica is GoDaddy's spokesperson, hence the reference. (2) Go back 10 years and you'll see Danica was quite hot. Like Anna Kournikova she should have been a model rather than enter sports. (IMHO)

Re:Good. (5, Funny)

grumpyman (849537) | more than 4 years ago | (#31603364)

Good. Don't buy anything made in China.

I hate their ads (1)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 4 years ago | (#31603422)

And their eye-bleed .NET web site, but I applaud this stand by GoDaddy. They did the right thing and that always speaks louder than really tacky advertising to me.

Wow (5, Funny)

Anonymusing (1450747) | more than 4 years ago | (#31602476)

GoDaddy did something I like.

Though, it probably has less to do with "Yay Freedom!" than "We can't sell that even with big-breasted women."

Re:Wow (4, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#31602806)

Probably has most of all to do with GoDaddy not wanting to figure out the logistics of integrating the new photography/ID requirements into their purchase system.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31603066)

well yeah... it might distract people from seeing the add-on offers.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31603128)

...or perhaps they didn't want the burden of authenticating the photographs. Otherwise, most registrants would submit a picture of Spongebob.

Re:Wow (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#31603204)

My guess is their database has no field for "real name" and they shy away from the cost to rewrite it.

Re:Wow (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31602920)

Its also because GoDaddy asked if they would be allowed to accept Wii Miis instead of photos but China said no.

Re:Wow (3, Informative)

Buelldozer (713671) | more than 4 years ago | (#31603100)

Danica Patrick has a bra size of roughly 32B. That's hardly "big breasted" ;-)

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31603440)

How do I know you are a stalker?

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31603492)

It is for race car drivers. Most of them are men and Jimmy Spencer is retired.

Re:Wow (2, Interesting)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#31603168)

Seriously, it's hard to believe I used to recommend them as a hosting service--back before their advertising campaigns started looking like Hooter's commercials. Now they could have the best value on the market and I'd still be ashamed to recommend them to any real client (and by "real" I mean "Anyone who isn't an old frat brother").

Made in China (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31603324)

how about we stop buying products that are Made In China?

Re:Wow (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 4 years ago | (#31603404)

Yeah, in the initial story I included a link to no daddy [nodaddy.com] . I just couldn't understand how GoDaddy could possibly be doing something non-evil. There's gotta be an angle.

Re:Wow (5, Funny)

Eighty7 (1130057) | more than 4 years ago | (#31603518)

I wish they'd go ahead and pull out of America too.

Hey, Me Too! (5, Funny)

0racle (667029) | more than 4 years ago | (#31602494)

I would also like to announce that I will no longer be accepting contract work originating in China.

Everything is easier when someone else takes the first steps.

Re:Hey, Me Too! (4, Insightful)

Jazz-Masta (240659) | more than 4 years ago | (#31602646)

It is easy for many companies that deal with web-based work to do this. China is a hotbed of Internet fraud. Although GoDaddy probably makes quite a bit off of domain registrations for .com/.net/etc from China, adding in the photography requirement isn't what will kill their interest. It is the eventual benefit of this requirement that would reduce much of the fraud coming from China (one hopes), and with the reduction of fraud, there are very few legitimate .com/.net/etc registrations from China compared to the US and the rest of the world.

Re:Hey, Me Too! (1)

Solarch (1473575) | more than 4 years ago | (#31602708)

If the photography requirement is discarded as a reason, as you suggest, then financially GoDaddy would have to realize that any number of registrations is greater than zero registrations, which is what GoDaddy would have if they pulled out. Why voluntarily take zero income as some sort of gesture against taking less income? Bit of a cutting-nose-to-spite-face dept thing to me.

Re:Hey, Me Too! (2, Informative)

Buelldozer (713671) | more than 4 years ago | (#31602784)

It's possible that the volume of registrations would fall low enough that they wouldn't make any money by continuing to do business there.

Re:Hey, Me Too! (1)

PotatoFarmer (1250696) | more than 4 years ago | (#31602930)

Domain registrations are mostly break-even for GoDaddy; they make most of their money by pushing hosted services on registrants. Given that the process mandated by the Chinese government would make registration more expensive, it's probably not worth it for GoDaddy to continue operation in China.

Re:Hey, Me Too! (5, Interesting)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 4 years ago | (#31602872)

I once worked with a client with subcontractors in China, who would at various times send him mockups and technical drawings for various products. On one particular project, time was getting tight and the subcontractor became strangely non-communicative at a crucial juncture. My client's blood pressure started rising as he kept trying (within the confines of a 10-12 hour timezone difference and a fairly significant language barrier on the telephone) to figure things out and get all the information we needed.

The subcon kept insisting "I sent the files. I sent the files" but he never received them. As a workaround I set up an FTP space where files could be exchanged and we got through our deadlines that way. After the fact, an idea occurred to me and I told my client "hey, why don't you just phone up your ISP and ask them why you're not getting email from China?"

Sure enough, it turned out his ISP had one day decided to just unilaterally stop accepting email from Chinese IP addresses. They did this as a spam and malware control measure, but didn't see fit to inform their customers of the change since they assumed it wouldn't impact anyone in any real way.

Fun times.

Re:Hey, Me Too! (4, Funny)

Thinboy00 (1190815) | more than 4 years ago | (#31603336)

You'd think they'd start with Nigeria.

Re:Hey, Me Too! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31603064)

GoDaddy has stopped accepting .cn registrations. That's China's domain, so China can set the registration requirements. If they say you have to provide a picture of the applicant in order to register .cn domains, then that's the way it is. The registries of other top level domains (like .com/.net/.org) do not require a picture of the domain owner (yet).

Re:Hey, Me Too! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31602912)

And I will not buy stuff from Walmart.

Re:Hey, Me Too! (1)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 4 years ago | (#31603366)

I don't fault companies who refuse to do business in China for whatever reason. Its simply the right thing to do.

pandemic? (2, Interesting)

bl8n8r (649187) | more than 4 years ago | (#31602542)

Not a big deal - godaddy isn't the only domain registry out there. I wonder what other companies are going to follow suit though. Endgame I see is china eventually unplugging from the rest of the world and inventing it's own set of 'tubes.

Re:pandemic? (5, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 4 years ago | (#31602662)

Mod this interesting? How the hell is China going to operate in a global economy where more and more business is done over the Internet? The whole point of the filtering is the realization that China cannot compete without allowing access to the Internet, but trying to mitigate the potential delirious effects (to the government and the party) of a fully open Internet. If all it took was just chopping down the copper and fiber at the borders and shutting off access to foreign satellites, without any harmful effects to the Chinese economy, they would have done this fifteen years ago. They don't because they can't, so they have to use the state muscle to try to keep people from seeing dangerous information.

Re:pandemic? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31602728)

I think 'deleterious' is the word you were looking for.

Re:pandemic? (1)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 4 years ago | (#31602840)

I don't know. I rather like the delirious interpretation.

Re:pandemic? (4, Funny)

hoggoth (414195) | more than 4 years ago | (#31602928)

> I think 'deleterious' is the word you were looking for.

Why? "delirious " is a perfectly cromulent word.

Re:pandemic? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31602818)

*Deleterious

Re:pandemic? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31602948)

Haven't you noticed where everything is made these days? Clothes, cell phones, HDTVs, computers, even foods are coming out of China to fill our local and online stores. You have no say in it. All this current political complaints from the West are purely hypocritical. If you want to help the ever so poor-n-stupid Chinese people, stop sending your money to the country. Tell American companies like Apple that you are not buying their products until they stop using child/slave labor in China and fab them elsewhere. Of course, you won't. None of you will. You don't give a shit in real terms, just as long as you get your latest shiny thing, fuck those you pretend you care about.

Re:pandemic? (1)

Old97 (1341297) | more than 4 years ago | (#31603126)

Excuse me, but Apple did their own investigations and discovered the child labor and other human rights violations including some that are legal in China. Apple penalized the guilty parties and forced them to either correct their practices or terminated their business with them. What other company in the world does this? No other company doing business in China does this, at least no other company of any significant size. The fact that Apple gets beat up by yahoos for investigating their suppliers and being transparent with their findings and the actions they have taken is astounding. Lenovo, Dell, HP, and others don't even look very hard for abuses much less share them with the world.

Re:pandemic? (1)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 4 years ago | (#31603386)

1) Other companies also make a show of "cracking down" on bad suppliers. Nike springs most immediately to mind but there are others.

2) Even if we choose to believe Apple is sincere, addressing just child labour violations still leaves a pretty long list of reasons to avoid China. A list that includes atrocious environmental stewardship, human rights abuses and oppression in Tibet and various other regions, lack of privacy and personal freedom, poor labour standards, shoddy product QC, etc.

Re:pandemic? (3, Insightful)

nahdude812 (88157) | more than 4 years ago | (#31603508)

For Apple to abandon a supplier practically costs them nothing. There are a hundred more companies eager to step up to the plate and at worst Apple sees a temporary dimple in their supply.

For Google to take a stance that they know shuts out a massive demographic is a much more significant ethical stand.

The two are not even close in terms of sacrifice involved.

Re:pandemic? (3, Interesting)

idontgno (624372) | more than 4 years ago | (#31603028)

Closed trade enclaves to protect the people from the cultural pollution of the Southern Barbarians [wikipedia.org] is an ancient and demonstratively successful strategy in that part of the world.

Anyone with a legitimate business, diplomatic, or other official government-sanctioned need for external access will get it... massively filtered and heavily monitored, and for only a ridiculously small proportion of the population. That way, effective monitoring is feasible. Access will be strictly white-list.

Everyone else gets the Chinese equivalent of AOL, pre-1993. (That's right, not even Usenet.)

Re:pandemic? (3, Funny)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 4 years ago | (#31603418)

Everyone else gets the Chinese equivalent of AOL, pre-1993

They get floppies in the mail every month?

Re:pandemic? (1)

tokenshi (1633557) | more than 4 years ago | (#31603146)

two words: gold farming

Obligatory (1, Funny)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 4 years ago | (#31602566)

In Soviet China, domain registers you.

No it's not. (5, Insightful)

IANAAC (692242) | more than 4 years ago | (#31602606)

No, it's not obligatory.

It's old and entirely unoriginal.

Re:No it's not. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31602676)

Not to mention that it didn't actually make sense.

Re:No it's not. (2, Funny)

spazdor (902907) | more than 4 years ago | (#31602816)

Let's all pile onto this pointless thread and chime in about how pointless it is, so that it will take longer to scroll past.

Re:No it's not. (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 4 years ago | (#31603106)

In Soviet Slashdot, pointless thread piles on YOU!

Re:No it's not. (4, Funny)

spazdor (902907) | more than 4 years ago | (#31603338)

In metasyntactic Mad-Lib substitution joke, Communist rhetorical cliches build unexpected wooden puns out of YEW!

Re:No it's not. (1)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 4 years ago | (#31602882)

The domain "registers" you, doesn't make sense? They are documenting domain owners. Hence, they are "registered." Soviet doesn't make sense, but that helps make the connection.
 
I actually thought it was kind of funny.

Re:No it's not. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31603286)

Also, it had near the same level of depth as the original quote rather than simple word reversal.

Original:
In America, you can always find a party. In Soviet Russia, the party always find you. --Yakov Smirnoff

Similar undertone and reference to a gov't's excessive level of control.

This use of an old and tired formula gets my approval.

Re:No it's not. (-1, Offtopic)

bostei2008 (1441027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31602808)

Why exactly was this modded "troll"?

Re:No it's not. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31602854)

i dont think you grasp the concept of a meme...

Re:No it's not. (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 4 years ago | (#31603022)

In Soviet China, entirely unoriginal and old is obligatory!

Re:No it's not. (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 4 years ago | (#31603138)

Hey, it said "Soviet China" instead of "Soviet Russia"! That would be enough originality to get a patent!

Re:No it's not. (1)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#31603328)

No, you know what is old an entirely unoriginal?

People bitching about things being old and entirely unoriginal.

Re:Obligatory (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#31603266)

It does in Soviet Russia, too. Just got an email from my registrar telling me that registration of new .ru domains, as well as maintenance of existing ones (cancellation, transfer, information update) will require an internal passport, with information in it that matches that submitted to domain registry (Russian passports have current place of permanent residence [wikipedia.org] information in it, which citizens are required to update as they move), starting from April. Checked to see if it's true, and sure enough, it was a .ru-wide change of rules from several months ago (which is about to kick in now).

Re:Obligatory (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 4 years ago | (#31603568)

Nice one, wish I had mod points

GoDaddy (1)

celticgeek (1356201) | more than 4 years ago | (#31602584)

Good for GoDaddy! It probably won't make any difference, but it is always good to make a statement,

Re:GoDaddy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31603044)

Good for GoDaddy for getting at least one sucker to believe that they did this to make a statement.

What is their bottom line in China? (3, Interesting)

zero_out (1705074) | more than 4 years ago | (#31602608)

I have to wonder just how much GoDaddy.com was making from its presence in China. What was its market share? What was its gross revenue?

Based on the opinions of many /. comments, I would have suspected that the two would make happy bedfellows. Doesn't GoDaddy.com practice extreme control over their clients, rooting boxes, and taking over lapsed domain names to then extort their customers, or am I mistaking it for another registrar / host?

Re:What is their bottom line in China? (1)

cstdenis (1118589) | more than 4 years ago | (#31602686)

Godaddy likes THEIR extreme control. Allowing others control isn't something that would make them happy.

Re:What is their bottom line in China? (1)

jsepeta (412566) | more than 4 years ago | (#31603040)

you're confusing godaddy with register.com

Not political, just too much work (3, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | more than 4 years ago | (#31602612)

China is imposing requirements that domain registrants must provide a photo and a business ID. That's too much hassle for GoDaddy, home of extreme low-end domain registrations. This has little to do with politics and much to do with GoDaddy's business model.

Re:Not political, just too much work (3, Interesting)

Charles Dodgeson (248492) | more than 4 years ago | (#31602748)

I agree entirely. GoDaddy wouldn't do something hard because it is right, but (like most businesses) would do something easy because it saves money.

I wonder (4, Funny)

Ukab the Great (87152) | more than 4 years ago | (#31602648)

If fu.cn is taken?

Re:I wonder (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31602870)

[Querying whois.cnnic.net.cn]
[whois.cnnic.net.cn]
the domain you want to register is reserved

Re:I wonder (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31603086)

It is now.

Re:I wonder (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31603502)

it is now

Geeze... (4, Funny)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 4 years ago | (#31602742)

What a bunch of boobs.

inalienable rights (-1, Troll)

vxice (1690200) | more than 4 years ago | (#31602744)

flame me but can't we just let countries choose their own path? there is no reason we need to force the American world view down everyone's throat. yes I do like my country but am awfully tired of our half assed attempts to export our way of life at all levels only when we see fit. we have supported as many dictators as democracies mostly because dictators are easier to please and get to follow our wishes.

Re:inalienable rights (2, Insightful)

RabidRabb1t (1668946) | more than 4 years ago | (#31602846)

Companies like Google and GoDaddy leaving China is not the result of them foisting their (or as you put it, American) views upon the Chinese; they are acting in what they believe to be their best interests. Filtering internet content or maintaining a backlog of photos and business IDs takes time and costs money. These companies did not like the control China was trying to exercise over them. The Chinese told them to get lost, and they did.

Re:inalienable rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31602848)

I was going to post some thoughts along these lines.

For me, it boils down to this: When corporations start controlling policy (as happens in the USA all the time) the corporations need to be controlled.

The opposite of that is when the government dictates, it needs to be controlled.

In the US, we plainly have some issues where government needs to tackle the corporations. In China, it's the opposite in some cases (although they seem to have their share of crony capitalism too).

Thus, I feel that I can cheer for the corporations vs. China here, without being a hypocrite.

OTOH, when the US government actually takes steps to regulate out-of-control corporations, I can cheer for that too.

I always get some flames when I tell people I'm a passionate moderate. They think passion and moderation are inconsistant positions. No, They AREN'T, and yes I'm SHOUTING MY PASSION FOR MODERATION from the rooftop. Moderate government. Moderate corporate influence. BALANCE, DAMNIT. See? Passionate moderation.

Re:inalienable rights (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31602936)

It would be one thing if the US government decided to force democracy down China's throat.

As things stand, that's not even in the ballpark of what's going on

This, my friend, is capitalism. Google's power comes from freedom of information, which is severely limited in China. Similarly, GoDaddy has decided that continuing to operate in China would be just too much hassle.

In my opinion, this is also the right thing to do. China is a big power -- possibly the next superpower. And if they do become at least as powerful as the US, it seems reasonable to hope that they will be dedicated to freedom instead of oppression.

But in the end, this is the market at work.

Re:inalienable rights (1)

Thinboy00 (1190815) | more than 4 years ago | (#31603434)

What about Hillary Clinton's speeches? </sarcasm>

Re:inalienable rights (2, Interesting)

neonKow (1239288) | more than 4 years ago | (#31602970)

Last I checked, neither Google nor GoDaddy has a military, so I don't see how they're forcing anything. Both GoDaddy and Google are probably less concerned about the health of the US than about the health of the Internet, so I don't even think "American world view" and "supporting dictators vs democracies" has much to do with the issue.

Re:inalienable rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31603182)

this was meant to be a counter argument to everyone who is inevitably going to say "way to go human rights."

Re:inalienable rights (4, Interesting)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 4 years ago | (#31603372)

I used to be really annoyed that the US has worked with so many kings and dictators, but then I realized the truth: 60 years ago, there was no one else really to do business with. More of the world was in some form of dictatorship than it was in democracy. When you look at it like that, the fact that we do business with Egypt really becomes more of a legacy operation than evilness, especially for the old guys in the state department who have been around a while.

am awfully tired of our half assed attempts to export our way of life at all levels only when we see fit. we have supported as many dictators as democracies mostly because dictators are easier to please and get to follow our wishes.

So you see a problem, and that is we aren't consistent in trying to make the world better, and your solution is to stop trying? If we change our policy, why don't we change it instead to be, encourage freedom where we can, deprecate evil wherever it is. We can't change the world alone, but almost everyone should agree that freedom of speech, women's rights, and freedom of self-determination are a good thing.

Re:inalienable rights (1)

vxice (1690200) | more than 4 years ago | (#31603496)

"deprecate evil wherever it is." Question: whose evil? and "We can't change the world alone, but almost everyone should agree that freedom of speech, women's rights, and freedom of self-determination are a good thing." that is only a very very recent development I mean even slavery was only completely, at least legally, eradicated half way through the 1900's.

Re:inalienable rights (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#31603574)

I used to be really annoyed that the US has worked with so many kings and dictators, but then I realized the truth: 60 years ago, there was no one else really to do business with.

The US government has repeatedly overthrown democratically elected (usually socialist) governments and installed capitalist friendly dictators.

Re:inalienable rights (2, Informative)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 4 years ago | (#31603500)

flame me but can't we just let countries choose their own path? there is no reason we need to force the American world view down everyone's throat.

Wait, I am confused.

Is your contention that:
1) Countries should be free to choose their own path, or is it
2) Countries should not be free to choose the path of shoving their worldview down everyone's throat

Because you can't have both.

Furthermore, even if we accept that what China is doing is legitimate in terms of "choosing their own path" (rather than a case of "shoving their worldview down everyone's throat"), why does that mean it has to be free of consequences? China chooses its path. Google, GoDaddy, and who knows who else looks at that path and says, "you know what, we're not willing to do business on those terms" and stops doing business in China. Do you think that not only should countries be able to choose their own path, but that private entities should be actively compelled to continue to do business in countries that they no longer wish to do business in?

.CN domain extensions, not chinese registrations! (5, Informative)

MrCawfee (13910) | more than 4 years ago | (#31602766)

This article summary is fairly misleading, they are no longer registering the .CN extension

Here is some background:

  In December, giving 2 days notice to the international registrars, the .CN registry changed their policy to require paper documentation to register a .CN domain name. In January, because the registry didn't plan this very well, and because they gave absolutely no notice, they decided to turn off registrations all together until they could figure out how to actually implement their new policy. The registry implemented their policy without figuring out actually how to implement their policy..

After a month of no registrations, they opened it up, changing their policy once again to only allow .CN registrations for companies not individuals, and only companies that had an office in china. From what i understand, they are trying to remove the stigma of .CN being the #1 fraud extension (before .cm came out that is)

So to be clear, godaddy is no longer doing .CN registrations because .CN is no longer completely automated, which makes it unprofitable with their business model which is primarily based on volume.

Re:.CN domain extensions, not chinese registration (1)

MrCawfee (13910) | more than 4 years ago | (#31602786)

On and one more thing, the Washington post article is WRONG TOO.

Re:.CN domain extensions, not chinese registration (1)

Wanderer1 (47145) | more than 4 years ago | (#31603010)

Other than the Post's general issues with content, how is the article wrong?
(Please post citations and sources for your conclusion.)

Note that the article quotes GoDaddy's general counsel as saying "We decided we didn't want to be agents of China."

Die China Die (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31602772)

The only thing China should be allowed to do is host a war.

This is bullshit! (0, Offtopic)

e2d2 (115622) | more than 4 years ago | (#31602788)

This is bullshit! This article is from today, it's not supposed to be posted here until earliest Friday and more likely by Sunday.

Do not comment! It will be posted again tomorrow anyway and your words will be forgotten. Or better yet I'll steal all the witty ones.

0.0 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31602836)

Pew pew

One word: Danica (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31602918)

The real reason for Godaddy pulling out isn't because of the Chinese government's new registration requirements, but because it can't survive as business when the government starved the company advertising dollars by banning its Danica Patrick online porno video ads.

China isn't the only one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31602976)

Not even a week ago there was an article on how the US government was pushing domain registrars to curtal effectivly anonymous registrations by pushing ID requirements. Before you critisize China you need to critical about the same shit closer to home.

Obviously the real reason why godaddy is pulling out is that for $5/yr or whatever the registration costs are the paperwork and ID requirements would not even come close to covering the cost of registration.

Re:China isn't the only one (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 4 years ago | (#31603196)

Not even a week ago there was an article on how the US government was pushing domain registrars to curtal effectivly anonymous registrations by pushing ID requirements. Before you critisize China you need to critical about the same shit closer to home.

Does that mean GoDaddy will also pull out of the USA?

to hell with China (1)

jsepeta (412566) | more than 4 years ago | (#31603008)

we need to take the growing chinese threat to america a lot more seriously than we have in the past. huzzah to google and godaddy for "getting it"

Re: to hell with China (1)

zero_out (1705074) | more than 4 years ago | (#31603332)

we need to take the growing chinese threat to america a lot more seriously than we have in the past. huzzah to google and godaddy for "getting it"

So much of history was driven by fear.

I must ask, what exactly are they threatening? Your life? Your freedom? The food on your child's plate? The TV sitting in your living room? The car sitting in your neighbor's driveway? What are they threatening to take away from you or your neighbor? What are they preventing you from having? Who is really threatening you? Is it the chinese farmer in a small village with no access to a city, or the government of China? It's obvious that you fear something, but what is it, and what do you propose we do about it?

I'm not trying to be combative. I sincerely want to understand what you consider a "growing chinese threat to america," and how you propose that we take it "a lot more seriously".

Me too (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 4 years ago | (#31603144)

I too will stop doing my business in China immediately. The fact I haven't started doing business there is irrelevant. The fact I might start again when nobody is paying attention is also irrelevant. All that matters now is that I grab some headlines and some free advertising ;)

cry wolfe: too many scam sites have .cn - but (1)

kubitus (927806) | more than 4 years ago | (#31603260)

then saying a photo and an ID for a domain registration is too much to stand for the sake of freedome?

are there some hyptocrites around?

In the news one can hear now that China does not like Google and some US services sharing bed and servers.

I think now some of the real reasons show up!

I see a trend here... (1)

bynary (827120) | more than 4 years ago | (#31603262)

...that each registrant be photographed, and their business ID number be submitted...

That doesn't sound too terribly far fetched for a step to be taken by any number of governments including the UK and US.

What ?!? No more Chinese TO GO !?! (0, Offtopic)

Bob_Who (926234) | more than 4 years ago | (#31603382)

...Daddy ?!? Not even the spare ribs ?

Hooray for rational behavior (1)

Un pobre guey (593801) | more than 4 years ago | (#31603446)

The Chinese government censors the Internet, thus screwing Chinese internet users. Google and GoDaddy find this offensive, so they cease serving Chinese internet users, thus screwing them again. Remind me how this makes sense?

Interesting (2, Interesting)

WeeBit (961530) | more than 4 years ago | (#31603488)

"Smith has sponsored a bill that would make it a crime for U.S. companies to share personal user information with "Internet-restricting" countries. "

Actually if you think about it, that Bill would help companies like Google and GoDaddy. Sorry China I can't help you in your quest to find out which of your citizens posted that content! Problem solved thanks to the new Bill.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>