×

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!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

356 comments

so uh why they'd support it? (5, Interesting)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489250)

a banned domain = customer has to buy another?

Re:so uh why they'd support it? (5, Insightful)

Stradenko (160417) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489272)

Government regulation of an industry increases the cost of entry for new competition. Established business will support something that gives them that kind of edge.

Re:so uh why they'd support it? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38489346)

That's my guess. That, and having somebody on board to write the legislation meant maybe they could work to exempt themselves from it. Too bad for all their customers though.

Re:so uh why they'd support it? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38489654)

You do know that Atlas Shrugged was a work of fixing, right?

Re:so uh why they'd support it? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38489756)

Fixing??? Are you a fucking retard?

Re:so uh why they'd support it? (5, Informative)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489354)

GoDaddy got the seized domains from the last round of ICE seizures. I'll let you connect the dots.

Very good point! (5, Informative)

Weezul (52464) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489384)

Also, GoDaddy has NOT withdrawn its official congressional support for SOPA [reddit.com], but they pretend they did when talking to the press.

Re:Very good point! (5, Insightful)

rgbrenner (317308) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489570)

GoDaddy has NOT withdrawn its official congressional support for SOPA

That's great... Yesterday, I figured I'll just leave my 15 domains there since they backed off their support.. but apparently only in words.

The way I see it, GoDaddy should be happy people are leaving.. if you run a site that has any user content, SOPA will mean you'll have to shut it down anyway.

godaddy + sopa support = one less godaddy domain
sopa passes = one less godaddy domain

So they're getting what they want either way. They should be happy.

Re:Very good point! (4, Funny)

RMingin (985478) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489596)

I'm working on transferring my domain off of GoDaddy, but am destitute. Anyone who would like to send me a few bucks, I'll guarantee it's used only for this transfer.

Re:Very good point! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38489742)

Reddit is right around the corner.

Re:Very good point! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38489726)

Yesterday, I figured I'll just leave my 15 domains there since they backed off their support.. but apparently only in words.

No offense, but this is an example of how gullible people can be and how easy it can be to manipulate them. Say some pretty words and people will continue mindlessly giving you money to erode their own freedoms with. I wish more people understood the ideas behind public relations and marketing. But let's go over it again: you can't trust what corporations say to you. They will always make statements that stand to gain them the most favor, whether the statements are true or not.

One has to actually use one's brain a little. Why would GoDaddy support SOPA, and then less than 24 hours later NOT support it? Do you think it's because they all changed their minds over there for some reason? Do you think they learned something new about SOPA they didn't know before? Or is it because they saw a pending backlash on the internet and wanted to release a bullshit statement that would satiate the docile among us? Do you really think they "backed off their support"? This is not difficult to figure out with a little bit of thought.

Re:so uh why they'd support it? (2)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489454)

follow the money.

isn't it always the way to understanding things, today?

I also suspect that they stand to make money from government, in some undisclosed ways. just a hunch, but anyone who cozies up to a gov deal is on the take.

things that look like ducks *are* ducks.

now that they've shown their colors, hopefully people will stay away from their business. ...almost like, well, an invisible hand (lol)

Re:so uh why they'd support it? (4, Insightful)

517714 (762276) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489828)

follow the money. isn't it always the way to understanding things, today?

For corporations, yes. For politicians, Yes. For religions, YES! Not necessarily for all individuals.

Re:so uh why they'd support it? (5, Informative)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489406)

GoDaddy helped write the legislation such that they are exempt from it.

Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO), the only member of Congress present at the hearing with any tech experience, having founded several web companies, introduced two amendments: one to exclude universities and non-profits from being subject do having to shut down their own domain servers if accused of piracy under SOPA, and the other to exempt dynamic IP addresses, such as those found on web-enabled printers. Both were voted down.

Polis pointed out that SOPA and Smith’s amendment already excluded certain operators of sub-domains, such as GoDaddy.com, from being subject to shutdowns under SOPA.

“If companies like GoDaddy.com are exempt, why aren’t non-commercial domain servers exempt?” Polis asked.

Re:so uh why they'd support it? (4, Insightful)

Skidborg (1585365) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489642)

Someone needs to go and burn down the Capital building already.

Re:so uh why they'd support it? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38489676)

bin laden bombed the wrong buildings

Re:so uh why they'd support it? (2, Insightful)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489770)

Someone needs to go and burn down the Capital building already.

I've been puzzled from the beginning as to why the OWS protesters aren't in front of the Capitol and the White House. They're the ones ultimately responsible for Wall Street corruption, because it necessarily requires a corrupt government in order to exist and grow.

For corruption to flourish in the private sector requires a corrupt government, for only with a corrupt government can the corrupt businesses and individuals be protected from the People and Justice.

Strat

Re:so uh why they'd support it? (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489648)

I think it probably has more to do with the fact that most folks writing HTML come to slashdot.

Re:so uh why they'd support it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38489814)

They got themselves exempted from the legislation. Of course they're going to benefit from a law that restricts their competitors.

20,034 transferred in the same day (5, Informative)

sup2100 (996095) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489262)

Gotta love statistics

Re:20,034 transferred in the same day (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38489744)

Mod parent up.

21,054 transferred out, but 20,034 transferred in. (from TFA)

i'm glad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38489264)

Good.... idiot frat boys running the company... Merry Christmas

Maybe (4, Informative)

chill (34294) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489270)

This might have something to do with the fact that Go Daddy sucks as a registrar. The whole SOPA thing was just the last straw.

Compared to whom? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38489386)

The fact is, that godaddy is amazing compared to the like of say 1&1 (worst registrar going).

Re:Compared to whom? (3, Interesting)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489694)

1&1 is fine with me. I've still got a free DEV package with unlimited domains (register for $6) and 300 MB of space. More than enough to host prototypes. Comes with sudo access so again works.

Democracy. (5, Insightful)

TehNoobTrumpet (1836716) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489278)

Voting with your wallets is much more effective then the fake choice presented in elections. Hopefully, people will finally realize that in today's world, it's the best way to start making a difference.

Re:Democracy. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38489312)

good thing everyone has the same number of votes in their wallets.

democracy.

Re:Democracy. (1)

TehNoobTrumpet (1836716) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489388)

This is a fair point, not sure how to answer it properly. The middle class is supposed to be the biggest group of consumers, so businesses would want to cater to their interests. Since big business is what basically owns the government, the politicians will become second hand representative of a large part of the populace. Maybe I'm being way too optimistic though, but I like to keep hope.

Re:Democracy. (2)

next_ghost (1868792) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489508)

You obviously don't realize just how small the middle class is right now and it keeps getting smaller.

Re:Democracy. (2, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489592)

You obviously don't realize just how small the middle class is right now and it keeps getting smaller.

Primarily because the tax-consumer class keep voting themselves more of the middle class' money. Democracy can only last until the majority realise they can vote to steal from the minority.

Re:Democracy. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38489692)

Democracy can only last until the majority realise they can vote to steal from the minority.

Your statement is close to the truth. What's happening in America today is the people with the majority of the money vote to steal from the people with the minority of the money.

Re:Democracy. (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489740)

Primarily because the tax-consumer class keep voting themselves more of the middle class' money. Democracy can only last until the majority realise they can vote to steal from the minority.

Investment bankers and defense contractor CEOs are a majority?

Re:Democracy. (1)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489762)

Lol. that didnt happen at all. the democracy of the poor to drive wealth in their direction is not even possible. But you can keep ignoring the reality that corps and banks own this country for decades. fuck you if you dont recognize reality and still vote. fuck your ignorance and shitty guesses fueled by the pseudo facts you received from the very culprits of our demise.

Re:Democracy. (1)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489810)

Voting with your wallets is much more effective then the fake choice presented in elections.

good thing everyone has the same number of votes in their wallets.

This is a fair point, not sure how to answer it properly.

Voting with your votes is much more effective than the fake choice presented in wallets.

Re:Democracy. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38489332)

Voting with your wallets is much more effective then the fake choice presented in elections.

That depends on how fat your wallet is.

Re:Democracy. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38489370)

Voting with your wallets is much more effective then the fake choice presented in elections. Hopefully, people will finally realize that in today's world, it's the best way to start making a difference.

No. You do both. My New Year wish for the world is actually that also Americans would bother to turn up and vote at an election. Instead of giving up before even trying, and by that handing the control over to the people who do bother. And if the result shouldn't be perfect the first time, you turn up even stronger next time. The politicans who want to keep their seat will start to get the message.

In a democracy the poor will have more power than the rich, because there are more of them, and the will of the majority is supreme. ~Aristotle
Bad officials are elected by good citizens who do not vote. ~George Jean Nathan
I'm tired of hearing it said that democracy doesn't work. Of course it doesn't work. We are supposed to work it. ~Alexander Woollcott
People often say that, in a democracy, decisions are made by a majority of the people. Of course, that is not true. Decisions are made by a majority of those who make themselves heard and who vote - a very different thing. ~Walter H. Judd

Re:Democracy. (1)

TehNoobTrumpet (1836716) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489402)

Of course voting in elections is important. I'm just saying that voting with your wallet is more effective right now, as it can actually influence the decision of someone with more influence than you a lot more easily. It's a start. Eventually, the politicians should be accountable directly to the people.

Re:Democracy. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38489530)

Voting with your wallets is much more effective then the fake choice presented in elections. Hopefully, people will finally realize that in today's world, it's the best way to start making a difference.

No. You do both. My New Year wish for the world is actually that also Americans would bother to turn up and vote at an election. Instead of giving up before even trying, and by that handing the control over to the people who do bother. And if the result shouldn't be perfect the first time, you turn up even stronger next time. The politicans who want to keep their seat will start to get the message.

In a democracy the poor will have more power than the rich, because there are more of them, and the will of the majority is supreme. ~Aristotle Bad officials are elected by good citizens who do not vote. ~George Jean Nathan I'm tired of hearing it said that democracy doesn't work. Of course it doesn't work. We are supposed to work it. ~Alexander Woollcott People often say that, in a democracy, decisions are made by a majority of the people. Of course, that is not true. Decisions are made by a majority of those who make themselves heard and who vote - a very different thing. ~Walter H. Judd

Why would they do that? Voting just legitimizes their position if your choice loses. The less people at the ballot box, the less support they have over their position of power. And considering there's a huge number of people voting for bad politicians, why support a bad system where they'll later start praising about the voter turnout and gloat about how they won. I'd rather vote with my feet and wallet, as it's makes a bigger impact (See Detroit). Now consider if the election was for a Hitler or Stalin, would you really vote against them when doing so means death, considering they're going to know who you are anyways. I didn't think so.

I'll take Plato's stance over Aristotle and all the people you've quoted.

http://www.voluntaryist.com/nonvoting/index.html [voluntaryist.com]

Re:Democracy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38489794)

Voting with your wallets is much more effective then the fake choice presented in elections. Hopefully, people will finally realize that in today's world, it's the best way to start making a difference.

No. You do both. My New Year wish for the world is actually that also Americans would bother to turn up and vote at an election. Instead of giving up before even trying, and by that handing the control over to the people who do bother. And if the result shouldn't be perfect the first time, you turn up even stronger next time. The politicans who want to keep their seat will start to get the message.

In a democracy the poor will have more power than the rich, because there are more of them, and the will of the majority is supreme. ~Aristotle Bad officials are elected by good citizens who do not vote. ~George Jean Nathan I'm tired of hearing it said that democracy doesn't work. Of course it doesn't work. We are supposed to work it. ~Alexander Woollcott People often say that, in a democracy, decisions are made by a majority of the people. Of course, that is not true. Decisions are made by a majority of those who make themselves heard and who vote - a very different thing. ~Walter H. Judd

Why would they do that? Voting just legitimizes their position if your choice loses. The less people at the ballot box, the less support they have over their position of power. And considering there's a huge number of people voting for bad politicians, why support a bad system where they'll later start praising about the voter turnout and gloat about how they won. I'd rather vote with my feet and wallet, as it's makes a bigger impact (See Detroit). Now consider if the election was for a Hitler or Stalin, would you really vote against them when doing so means death, considering they're going to know who you are anyways. I didn't think so.

I'll take Plato's stance over Aristotle and all the people you've quoted.

http://www.voluntaryist.com/nonvoting/index.html [voluntaryist.com]

And that strategy is working out great for the US? It's the people who do bother to vote who gets to decide over the ones who don't. Blaiming the system, alternatives, lobyists and money is just a cop out when the country has never even tried the effect of actual large voter turnout. There isn't enough lobbyists to keep these people in office, you do (through action or inaction). I don't disagree with voting with wallets too, not at all. this isn't either or.

Re:Democracy. (3, Informative)

next_ghost (1868792) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489608)

I'm tired of hearing it said that democracy doesn't work. Of course it doesn't work. We are supposed to work it. ~Alexander Woollcott

This is the first most important thing to remember about democracy. The second most important thing to remember is that it's not anywhere near enough to just vote once every few years. Votes are not blank cheques for politicians. You have the right to check up on your elected representatives and the right to complain loudly if they misappropriate government money or do evil. Your duty as a citizen is to use both of those rights.

Re:Democracy. (3, Interesting)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489652)

If you want a larger turnout for the elections, you need to offer better candidates; many people stay at home because they despise the choices offered to them.

There should be a constitutional amendment that states if less than 50% of eligible voters show up to vote, the election cannot be held as valid; elections must be held again, 3 months later, with an entirely new slate of candidates.

Re:Democracy. (4, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489768)

If you want a larger turnout for the elections, you need to offer better candidates; many people stay at home because they despise the choices offered to them.

Again, the solution to this is to work harder. Don't just wait until the general election; get involved in the primaries. And don't just concentrate on the big-ticket races (President, Governor, US Senator and Representative); pay attention to races for state legislature, city council, board of education, county commissioner, etc. The only way we're going to get better candidates is if more people pay attention to the process by which candidates are made. By the time the Tuesday after the first Monday in November rolls around, it's too late.

Re:Democracy. (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489374)

That's a great point so long as the contents of your wallet are actually worth something... Get my meaning?

Re:Democracy. (3, Interesting)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489720)

sorry, but while you are correct; its not effective anymore.

people (especially in a down econ) are mostly going to be voting for the CHEAPEST short-term solution they can find for the problem they are solving.

no one invests for long-term. no one buys higher quality today when they can buy walmart chinese shit for 'so much less'.

go to a coupon/deals site like slickdeals or fatwallet. see the mentality of 'todays youth'. see how the near total lack of morality in shopping is abundant in their consumer group. point out how evil a company is and you are made fun of. point out how an item will break so shortly after you buy it and they reply 'yeah, but its only a few dollars!'.

they don't get it.

we are so screwed....

godaddy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38489284)

It's not over. I only have about 10 domains but I'm going to go elsewhere. The "reversal" was to little, to late, bitches. Man, I use to LOVE Bob Parsons and his whole in your face antics, but to Hell with him and Godaddy now.

Re:godaddy (1)

inviolet (797804) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489376)

It's not over. I only have about 10 domains but I'm going to go elsewhere. The "reversal" was to little, to late, bitches. Man, I use to LOVE Bob Parsons and his whole in your face antics, but to Hell with him and Godaddy now.

Yep, I'm moving too. Looks like HostGator is a good choice for where to move. I'm looking forward to my "Cancel my accounts, I think your organization is evil" phone call to GoDaddy, those are always fun.

Their "remedy" is to support it from the shadows. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38489300)

I can only hope that when more and more special interests begin to require that their support of some law mustn't be made public, the politicians taking the money stop for a second and think about what the hell they're doing.

BWHAHAA. As if! Man, sometimes I kill myself.

Carry on, corrupt entities.

Significant? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38489310)

How significant is this? I don't know how to read this data, but TFA itself seems to note that almost as many domains transferred in on the same day, and it says here [dailychanges.com] that they manage some 32 million domains, so that really doesn't seem like much. Can't find any historical data, though, so I don't know if it's outside the norm for daily activity... is it?

Re:Significant? (1)

Grave (8234) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489418)

I would say this is just the start - the people who are usually in control of domain registration for web sites are the same sort who are going to vehemently oppose SOPA and it's ilk. The long term effects will likely be much more significant, as people change registrars when renewals come up, and fewer people register new domains with them.

GoDaddy's decision to not actually reverse their stance, and instead just put out a press release filled with lies has only compounded the problem.

Google uses Godaddy as a registrar partner (4, Informative)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489558)

Announced in 2010 [thedomains.com] Found on Reddit. [reddit.com]

It's probably time to remind Google what "Don't be evil" is. Breaking the Internet is definitely a no-no.

I wonder how many other companies need to be reminded of this. Anybody got a list?

Total control (1)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489314)

GoDaddy controls around 45 million domains. So this is about 1/2000 of all their domains. Not that much by that metric. But what probably caused a notice is that this is a much larger variance than what normally occurs on any given day. And some of these domains were domains which were using affiliated services.

Re:Total control (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38489358)

in one day.... the more their position got out, the more they would have lost. sure it would have slowed down, but any large company that starts NEGATIVE GROWTH because of ONE decision is going to find themselves reversing that decision pretty quickly.
I would have moved my 8 domains within a day or two.

Re:Total control (2)

abhi_beckert (785219) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489364)

Customers tend to stick with a single domain registrar for decades, so 21,000 domains is millions of dollars in lost revenue, in just one day. If they continued to support SOPA it would have really hurt.

And that doesn't even take into account all the customers who're too lazy to switch existing domains, but will switch for future ones.

You can bet godaddy will think twice before supporting anything like SOPA ever again.

Re:Total control (4, Informative)

naroom (1560139) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489392)

If they continued to support SOPA it would have really hurt.

They DID continue to support SOPA. They just released some damage-control PR saying they weren't supporting it as strongly.

Re:Total control (2)

preaction (1526109) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489396)

Except they do still support it. Their carefully-worded PR piece and their CEO's blog both say exactly that.

Re:Total control (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489458)

Customers tend to stick with a single domain registrar for decades,

It hasn't been that long since there were multiple places to register a domain.

Re:Total control (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38489786)

If they were too lazy to switch what makes you think they'll jump to action now? Contrary to what you might think, not everybody has even heard of SOPA.

Re:Total control (2)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489544)

Also, the official "move your domain day" was the 29th IIRC, so while this could be an insignificant blip, it might be an indicator of how many will move later.

Re:Total control (2)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489782)

Yes, just 1/2000. But when you know how companies work, you know they're probably still crapping their pants over it.

Companies have to grow to make their shareholders and investors happy. Stagnation is an alarm bell. Shrinking is a "gimme my money back NOW" indicator. No matter how small.

Especially in times like this when investors are at a hair trigger already.

Making for a nice sale, though. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38489338)

I just bought a domain from them today. $4 for a .us? uh, yes, please.

It is actually more than 21,000 domains (4, Informative)

chrisgeleven (514645) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489344)

This # doesn't include any domains transferred away from GoDaddy that were delegated to non-GoDaddy nameservers. The 21,000 number is only for domains that used GoDaddy's nameservers for DNS. So the actual # was higher than 21,000.

The question is what is the real number of transferred away domains? I don't know if any of those statistics are available publicly.

Re:It is actually more than 21,000 domains (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38489474)

Of Course these stats are available. All you have to do is a get a dump of the .com whois database from before this fiasco and compare it with a dataset after.

How might you get such a dump?
I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader:
Hint: verisign offers dumps on .com (and other registries that they own)

Re:It is actually more than 21,000 domains (1)

PhreakOfTime (588141) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489610)

Good point. I hate to admit my names were still there, and quite a few of them. I will admit to it being laziness on my part which kept them there, it was just easy to keep them at the same place... until now. My domains were all using my own custom nameservers, so wouldn't show up in those numbers if that is how the measurement is being done. As of today, the last of the confirmation emails came in closing out all my transfers out of godaddy to elsewhere.

Re:It is actually more than 21,000 domains (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38489764)

It was the same here, though I only had the one domain. And it was almost as painful to transfer it as thought. But I'm glad I did it.

Re:It is actually more than 21,000 domains (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489690)

Excellent observation. I haven't used GoDaddy's DNS for a long time but I use their hosting because - whatever, it's cheap, I'm lazy, and I don't need any advanced control features. Put File Online -> Link to File -> Done.

The business server is CoLocated and uses CPanel. I'll stick to that for REAL web work.

How different is this from other days? (1)

BLKMGK (34057) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489350)

Seriously? If this is tracked I'd love to know that this is significant in some way and not just a blip...

Misleading summary (5, Informative)

SuperMog2002 (702837) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489390)

According to the article, GoDaddy lost 21,054, but they also gained 20,034, for a net loss of 1020. Given their scale, that doesn't exactly sound like a massive exodus. Also, without any further information, for all we know, this is just a regular day of churn that happened to end negative.

Re:Misleading summary (5, Informative)

klui (457783) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489472)

Re:Misleading summary (1)

dwillden (521345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489484)

But don't forget that the article also stated thatthe number drops has been growing over the past few days.

Re:Misleading summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38489602)

According to the article, GoDaddy lost 21,054, but they also gained 20,034, for a net loss of 1020. Given their scale, that doesn't exactly sound like a massive exodus. Also, without any further information, for all we know, this is just a regular day of churn that happened to end negative.

And honestly, why wouldn't they gain? They have pretty good prices and good enough service offerings that most registrars don't offer or offer at a higher price. And not to mention they make it completely easy to register any domain, even my computer illiterate grandmother can do it.

I'll be one of the ones moving my domains and services out of godaddy, but I doubt that's going to make much of an impact, considering most of Godaddy's customers don't really care what they do politically as long as their services don't go down.

GoDaddy could have continued to support SOPA and I doubt it would have had an impact on their sales, they just got frightened but then realized that their change in stance was too premature

Spellchecking (1, Offtopic)

Knave75 (894961) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489398)

Seriously, this is a high traffic site. A two-line summary should not contain two spelling mistakes.

Were != Where

And, "Daddy" has a suprisingly large number of D's

Re:Spellchecking (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38489420)

What does "suprisingly" mean?

Re:Spellchecking (1)

Knave75 (894961) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489620)

lol... touche.

But my comment was not a summary on a major website.

derp derp (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38489688)

You didn't capitalize lol. Where is the accent mark in "touche"?

You suck at being a grammarnazi.

Then Who? (1)

SuperCharlie (1068072) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489446)

I am in up to my eyeballs at Godaddy. Who has similar prices and services that are worth changing to?

Re:Then Who? (2)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489554)

hostmonster, but if you want the deal you have to pay up front for a couple years (which isnt all that bad), otherwise they have no per month plan the shortest would be 90 days where it comes out to 10 bucks a month

yea their pricing is a bit of a ass, but their service is great, I switched from godaddy about 6 years ago and have had great experiences (and even have ssh access which is freaking awesome)

Re:Then Who? (2)

Solandri (704621) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489574)

I am in up to my eyeballs at Godaddy. Who has similar prices and services that are worth changing to?

I was searching for Godaddy alternatives yesterday.

At a similar price, the registrars which consistently came up were namecheap.com, name.com, and surprisingly dreamhost.com (not for their features, but because they include whois privacy in their regular price). I think all these are resellers though (enom kept coming up as their registrar).

In terms of features and support, gandi.net and hover.com seemed to be most popular. They are pricier than Godaddy though.

Re:Then Who? (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489724)

I find HostGator.com has similar pricing, though for all I know they support SOPA too.

I'm about sick of GoDaddy even without their support for this nonsense. How much spam can one company send?

I opted out of everything, now kindly f©k off.

Bwahahahahaha (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38489480)

Nice job.....

A successful boycott (3, Interesting)

J'raxis (248192) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489488)

Serves them right.

On the one hand, this is a great example of a successful boycott: GoDaddy committed an egregious action which generated so many complaints, threats of monetary loss, and now 21,000 examples of actual loss, that GoDaddy did a complete about-face and dropped support of SOPA.

On the other hand, this company has committed so many egregious and unethical actions over their lifetime (anyone else remember NoDaddy.com?) that I would rather see them lose so much business that they go out of business. If I hadn't already moved my domains off of them after one of their earlier outrages [slashdot.org], I'd still move them off now, even though they turned around on SOPA. Let their flaming wreckage be an example to other domain registrars.

Wasn't this obvious? (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489506)

Your customer base are people who own and maintain a website - not the general idiotic public.

And you're pretty much supporting something which goes against what they believe in.

What did they expect would happen?

Where is the hate for Apple? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38489606)

Why must GoDaddy be the punching bag for SOPA?

25,000 is laughably low (4, Informative)

Twinbee (767046) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489612)

This news has been over Reddit and apparently has been discredited. 25,000 is apparently very low in this industry, and is therefore a joke. The real number is much higher. For the latest info, follow this story and listen to samzdaman who seems to know his stuff: http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/nq17m/godaddy_has_actually_lost_one_million_1000000/ [reddit.com] To quote him:

GoDaddy accounts for 30% of all domain registrations, and there are, on average, 27K .com domains registered PER DAY.

The only thing surprising here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38489624)

Is that anyone notices and cared. Self serving backstabbing rights tromping is the order of the day. Just because every once in a great while they actually get caught with their pants down and suffer a little minor discomfort for a short time something is supposed to change? I wish my pessimism was as weak as yours.

Looks like Godaddy is gaming the numbers (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38489644)

1) If you take a look at godaddy New domains, they are mostly spam, malware or ad pages, and most are registered by one or a small number of people in China.
2) Transfers into godaddy are mostly bulk transfers from Chinese registrars.
3) Transfers out are also mostly spam/malware/ad pages, and are going to Chinese registrars.

The chinese connection is not a coincidence. I will bet money that those Chiese registrars are either controlled by Godaddy or have a sweetheart deal with them to either game ICAAN or the numbers.

Either way those numbers are misleading at domaincontrol and cannot be trusted.

21,000 out of 45 million? (0)

ZZ-Type (577907) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489646)

So they lost 21,000 domains in a day? According to WikiPedia, they had 45 MILLION domains registered through them in 2010! Bet they didn't even notice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_Daddy [wikipedia.org]

Re:21,000 out of 45 million? (1)

rsilvergun (571051) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489714)

You're right it's a small number (about 1/20th of a percent); that's small enough to chalk up to regular attrition. I think the point is it happened in one day. The stat we'd want to see is average transfers in a day. That's how you'd know if this was BAU or something to watch. The article does suggest this looks like an accelerating trend though.

Re:21,000 out of 45 million? (1)

ZZ-Type (577907) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489746)

Just using oversimplified math, I divided 45,000,000 by 365 (days) and got 123,287 per day. I know that's not "real," but helps to give some perspective.

I'll change, but not now (0)

frps25 (1663043) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489732)

I'm certainly changing from GoDaddy, but not right now, yes, I'm pissed off but also I don't wanna loose money, anyway I have already paid them for a year on several domains, Why not wait a little while?

Good Alternatives to GoDaddy? (1)

rwwyatt (963545) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489792)

What are the good alternatives to GoDaddy?

register.com ? I have about 20 domains I need to transfer

Re:Good Alternatives to GoDaddy? (2)

Yosho (135835) | more than 2 years ago | (#38489822)

For what it's worth, I've been using DirectNIC [directnic.com] for years and have never had a problem with them. They are also not on the list of SOPA supporters.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...