×

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!

Wikipedia Hasn't Forgiven GoDaddy

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the serious-godaddy-issues dept.

Wikipedia 190

netbuzz writes "The fact that a month and a half has gone by and Wikipedia still hasn't followed through on Jimmy Wales public threat to remove its domain name registrations from GoDaddy over the latter's early support of SOPA has some concerned that the online encyclopedia may have had a change of heart. After all, GoDaddy did withdraw its backing of the controversial antipiracy legislation, at least publicly. But fear not, SOPA foes, as Wikipedia says its days with GoDaddy are indeed numbered and that number is getting very small."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

190 comments

every time you say nigger (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39003123)

G-d kills a nigger

Re:every time you say nigger (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39003181)

I quit believing in things like that when my masturbating didn't get God to kill emo kids or kittens.

Re:every time you say nigger (-1, Offtopic)

luke923 (778953) | more than 2 years ago | (#39003273)

That's because God loves kittens and all the emo kids decided they wanted to be ironic and turned hipster.

Re:every time you say nigger (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39003307)

G-d, really? If you mean god, fucking say the word you... oh, you're good. You pretended your trolling was about racism but that was only a distraction.

Re:every time you say nigger (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39003525)

G-d, really?

G-d = GoDaddy.

And the AC's not kidding, those guys really are evil. They call them server rooms, but they're really dungeons, with racks full of African-Americans, all wired up to 440Kv. And every time you say "nigger" on /., one of them gets switched on and fried.

Oh god, I've just gone done it, haven't I? Sorry man, so sorry.

SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks (5, Insightful)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 2 years ago | (#39003137)

Let's also not forget all the other ways GoDaddy sucks:

  • So much up-selling a car dealer would blush
  • Obnoxious TV advertisements that are straight out of Idiocracy
  • Customer service worse than the post office or a bank
  • That whole elephant-killing thing.

So fuck GoDaddy. There's plenty of registrars with better service that cost less anyway.

Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks (1)

Zeroblitzt (871307) | more than 2 years ago | (#39003151)

Internets. Serious business.

A Personal Appeal from Jimmy Wales (4, Funny)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 2 years ago | (#39003329)

I'm just waiting for the personal appeal to boycott Godaddy.

Re:A Personal Appeal from Jimmy Wales (4, Funny)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 2 years ago | (#39003635)

"Hi, I'm Jimbo. I'm going to leave my face on every page until GoDaddy goes out of business. You know what to do. Thank you for your support."

Re:A Personal Appeal from Jimmy Wales (4, Funny)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#39003657)

I'd just like to say../wipes away tear/...that I'd like to thank the little HTML nerd that made the ABP code that made Jimbo's ugly ass mug finally disappear from Wikipedia forever! Bless your little nerdy heart!

Re:A Personal Appeal from Jimmy Wales (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39003723)

I'd just like to say../wipes away tear/...that I'd like to thank the little HTML nerd that made the ABP code that made Jimbo's ugly ass mug finally disappear from Wikipedia forever! Bless your little nerdy heart!

Seconded! Is it ironic that I donated to ABP as thanks for getting rid of Jimmy's appeal for money?

Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39003189)

There's plenty of registrars with better service that cost less anyway.

Who? Seriously, I'd like to know. A few recommendations of who is both cheaper and has better service would be much appreciated.

Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks (4, Informative)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#39003253)

I believe when we were having this discussion namecheap was the consensus.

Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks (1)

B1oodAnge1 (1485419) | more than 2 years ago | (#39003409)

I've enjoyed namecheap's services

Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39003933)

Only is watch using mail forwarding on a hosting account. They will disable if you exceed 200 messages or 100 forwards in a day. They won't tell you why either. Fixed this by using my virtual server to forward.

Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks (5, Interesting)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 2 years ago | (#39003343)

and don't forget also:

The GoDaddy CEO publicly supports waterboarding [gizmodo.com.au]
GoDaddy already has an history of shutting down domains without requiring to see a court order
GoDaddy has a long history of getting its customer servers/accounts hacked and not saying anything about it to its customers
And during the SOPA exodus, which is still going on, it's been dragging its feet [washingtonpost.com] on domain transfers (a violation of ICANN rules and regulations).
Hopefully, they'll have their domain name registry privileges taken away by ICANN because of that last one.

Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks (4, Informative)

SuperTechnoNerd (964528) | more than 2 years ago | (#39003403)

Don't forget The GoDaddy CEO shoots elephants in Africa for fun too.. Nice guy.

Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39003895)

Nobody ever gives the context on this story.

But yeah, GoDaddy is a slimey co.

Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39003955)

What's wrong with that? Pleanty of people hunt animals, pleanty of people go fishing, there's no difference except an elephant is slightly bigger than most fish.

Of course if he was doing it illegally then that's another matter...

Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39003473)

LOL.
After following your link to waterboarding, which then leads to another page 60 links deep proclaiming the GoDaddy CEO supports waterboarding, the only thing it eventually led to is a blog posting by the CEO calling Guantanamo Bay an "important asset" to protect Americans. So yes, I suppose you could say he therefore supports waterboarding, in the same way that if a staff member at Guantanamo Bay was into BDSM, you could say Bob Parson supports BDSM tooly. Or in the same way that you support Open Source, of which Linux is a leading example, which contains components written by Hans Reiser, who was a murderer; and therefore you publicly support murder.

Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks (1)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 2 years ago | (#39004013)

or because my Workmate went to school with James McAvoy, who starred in X-Men First Class with Kevin Bacon means that I'm friends with Kevin Bacon!

Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks (2)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 2 years ago | (#39004089)

the only thing it eventually led to is a blog posting by the CEO calling Guantanamo Bay an "important asset" to protect Americans

Thus GD does support waterboarding. I was expecting that to be FUD.

Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks (1)

Slur (61510) | more than 2 years ago | (#39003505)

I went for a Hostgator reseller account. But just till they get too evil.

Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39003659)

Look... if you want people to stop using GoDaddy. Point out that: 1. They have shit customer service. 2. they are all too willing to serve up your information for marketing. 3. they support really obnoxious internet censoring legislation.

Do not: get all politically correct about their adverts (oh look... objectifying women... hate crime! HATE CRIME!!), or the fact that their CEO shoots elephants. Why... because no-one gives a fuck about those things, and it makes you look like a hissy-fit throwing faggot.

Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks (1)

Air-conditioned cowh (552882) | more than 2 years ago | (#39003733)

Plus the user interface pages end in "aspx". Which is the mark of the BEAST!

Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39003953)

Plus the user interface pages end in "aspx". Which is the mark of the BEAST!

AddHandler php5-script aspx

love to do this :)

Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39004109)

That should be on a shirt.

Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39004113)

Can you provide some examples of comparable/better registrars with all of GoDaddy's services. I know plenty of people who would switch if they knew better.

Thanks

forgivness (5, Insightful)

SuperTechnoNerd (964528) | more than 2 years ago | (#39003149)

I have not forgiven my congress critters either. Looking forward to November.

Re:forgivness (2, Insightful)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 2 years ago | (#39003209)

So you can vote in the other (potentially worse) corporate candidate? Or do you plan to vote for a third party with little chance of winning? If the first, at least do the due diligence of figuring out if the opposition is more fanatical in support of the things you dislike. This is a step I fear most people do not realize is necessary. If the second, well... have fun being a statistical outlier.

Re:forgivness (5, Insightful)

EuclideanSilence (1968630) | more than 2 years ago | (#39003221)

What the hell is wrong with being a statistical outlier? Elections aren't some horserace that you win by voting for the candidate that gets office, they are won when public opinion changes.

Re:forgivness (5, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#39003263)

What the hell is wrong with being a statistical outlier? Elections aren't some horserace that you win by voting for the candidate that gets office, they are won when public opinion changes.

True, but public opinion isn't changed by the fact that 0.2% of the vote went to Generic Third Party #17. Not even a little bit.

If you want to effect change via voting:
1) Primary for the best candidate you can find (a lot of people ignore this step, and then go on to bemoan that they only have two choices in the general election)
2) Vote for the least bad of the two major party nominees at the federal level
3) Vote for third parties at the local and state level

Non-federal politics matter a whole lot -- more than federal politics for many aspects of life -- and are easier to influence. Plus the pool of people who get taken seriously at a federal level tends to be drawn from those who have been successful at the lower levels. If you can get a great candidate to be a popular and successful state senator, then he's got a good shot at becoming governor. If you've got a popular and successful independent governor, I know a whole lot of people who'd love to see him become president. It's admittedly a long shot, but it's better than throwing away your vote every cycle in a protest that 99.9% of the populace won't even notice.

Re:forgivness (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39003379)

Your a nigger

Re:forgivness (4, Insightful)

epine (68316) | more than 2 years ago | (#39003517)

True, but public opinion isn't changed by the fact that 0.2% of the vote went to Generic Third Party #17. Not even a little bit.

You can't back that up, I don't believe it to begin with, and the argument from continuity suggests it's not even logically possible, not to mention the problem with induction.

There exists threshold j below which your vote matters not at all in the minds of dullards who believe this. At some point you have to cross the dullard threshhold. Only a non-dullard can move the dullards. But even the non-dullard concedes that there exists k much less than j below which his inductive impetus is wasted. Only a double non-dullard can move the non-dullards. But even a double non-dullard concedes that there exists m much less than k ...

On a more practical basis, there was a time in the nineties in a Canadian election where the dismal third option failed to clear a threshold I didn't even know about: percentage of popular vote which granted them official party status and the resources which flow from that. All the idiots were saying "don't waste your vote" over votes this party desperately needed to clear this bar.

The big one in America, of course, is excluding Ralph Nadar (or anyone like him) from the presidential debate. I think that's the worst possible outcome of all, because it grants the asylum complete control over the speaking points. All you have left are two candidates promising the same small opposites. We're left arguing over the colour of the paint rather than whether to adopt a gasoline or diesel engine.

These throw-away votes don't decide between the donkey and the elephant, but they have a big impact on whether good candidates, or at least strong voices for a different future, bother to show up at all.

I believe America should outlaw two party debate in presidential elections. There should always be at least a third voice who gets equal time, selected by whatever mechanism proves workable. (This is probably a long term arms race where the incumbents constantly work to scupper whatever worked the time before.)

In fact, I wouldn't mind having an entire panel of third party voices who collectively get 1/3 of the total debate time. They can have a bidding system among themselves for who gets to cut in on which issues.

Your rule of thumb is a good one for people who don't wish to think. Not even a little bit.

Re:forgivness (3, Informative)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#39003597)

You can't back that up (1), I don't believe it to begin with (2), and the argument from continuity suggests it's not even logically possible (3), not to mention the problem with induction (4).

1. Yes, I can, through experience and basic knowledge of how people tend to approach politics. I know, I know, "problem of induction". We'll come to that.
2. Clearly, but your belief is not required for it to be true.
3. You're misusing the continuity argument. Clearly there exists some threshold at which third party votes matter. In practice, that threshold is far above what we're currently capable of reaching. The continuity argument only applies when you can reach both endpoints.
4. The "problem" of induction is a philosophical one. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem proves that no numerical system can be both consistent and complete, but that doesn't stop me from using math. Likewise, while the "problem" of induction means that my never having seen the Cubs win a World Series does not make such an event impossible, I'm sure as all hell not gonna bet on them.

Your recursive stack of "dullards", while cute, misses a key point. It assumes that as you progress in levels (j, k, m, n4, n5, n6...), as your level approaches infinity the threshold will drop to zero. Maybe instead the threshold asymptotically approaches 10%. Below that level, even the infinitely non-dullardly don't care about the third party vote. And before you raise yourself as a counter example, note that we can have also have a class of double-dullards (don't complain about the offensive terminology -- you picked it) who always care.

In short, you're trying too hard to apply simple mathematical reasoning to a process that is far more complex than you have accounted for. I don't doubt that it is theoretically possible to model human behavior in such a way, but your name's not Hari Seldon, and you're not going to perform a psychohistorical analysis of American voting trends in a Slashdot comment.

Re:forgivness (1)

perlchild (582235) | more than 2 years ago | (#39003969)

Whatever method works...
AND the results are secret FROM the candidates, AND the public, until the debate.

The third candidate should be a total unknown to both existing parties, and they should enter the lion's cage TOTALLY unharmed.

Re:forgivness (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39003791)

Fuck that shit.

The UK has it's first Green MP a year or so ago because people actually voted for the candidate they wanted, rather than who they thought had a chance of winning.

If you keep voting for primary Democrat/Republicans, guess what, that's what you'll keep getting!

Re:forgivness (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#39003869)

Sure, in a district of 70k people, with three major parties to divide votes between instead of just two. In the US, the average congressional district is nearly ten times that size (~650k), and there are only two major parties.

And out of curiosity, how much has that one MP been able to do? She's not part of the Tory-Lib Dem coalition government, and while I admit my knowledge of British politics is shaky (having come mostly from being stuck in a hotel that only received the BBC and some weird Japanese crap for the entire month of May 2010), I'm pretty sure that that means she has no real power. But checking their party's Wikipedia article, I see that they won a local election in 2011 and were able to get at least a few policy goals through. Which is the exact method of change that I advocated.

Re:forgivness (1)

madprof (4723) | more than 2 years ago | (#39004021)

She may not actually change the content of any government legislation, or even swing a vote in the House of Commons, but she has a far more powerful voice to espouse her views and challenge the complacent Westminster establishment.
The best thing is that if she does a half-decent job for her constituents, they might return her at the next election as she's not liable to lose votes due to the ruling party losing popularity.

Everyone knew she had a chance of winning (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39004037)

The Green candidate was only 900 votes behind the Conservative at the 2005 general election and they'd been gaining ground for years. It had been much discussed as a possibility, which doubtless boosted people's awareness of her candidacy.

Brighton is a special case, being known for being lefty and socially liberal, and given its large LGBT population.

Re:forgivness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39003845)

If you want to effect change via voting:
1) Primary for the best candidate you can find (a lot of people ignore this step, and then go on to bemoan that they only have two choices in the general election)
2) Vote for the least bad of the two major party nominees at the federal level
3) Vote for third parties at the local and state level

1. People who aren't Republicunts or Democraps can't vote in the primaries that matter.

2. Tell me who that is. Our current options are a twatwaffle who hasn't even read the fucking Constitution, versus a pretty terrible businessman who hasn't read the Constitution, a Theocratic frothy mixture of lube and fecal material who makes the Ayatollah look like an Atheist, and a douchebag that was kicked out of Congress. There's a slim chance we might get the chance for a crazy old guy who's read the Constitution and therefore will accomplish nothing, because by virtue of understanding the actual powers granted to the Federal government, he scares the fuck out of both Democraps and Republicunts.

No, I'll vote for the worst possible candidate. Let the country burn; if the fires are hot enough, perhaps Joe "Cocksmoocher" Averageamerican will finally wake the fuck up. My faith extends just far enough to think there's a slim possibility the awakening will involve political change, rather than whining for the government to take care of everything because oh my god being an adult is hard and life is dangerous.

3. This is just as ineffective as voting for third parties at the Federal level, really.

Re:forgivness (1)

GreatBunzinni (642500) | more than 2 years ago | (#39003865)

True, but public opinion isn't changed by the fact that 0.2% of the vote went to Generic Third Party #17. Not even a little bit.

Are you voting in function of what the public opinion is, or are you actually depositing your vote on what you personally believe is the best candidate?

You don't get any prize in voting on the winning candidate. Voting for a public election isn't a groupon deal. You vote on the candidate you believe is the best candidate for office, and then election officials count your vote. If your candidate doesn't win then tough luck, at least that candidate got your vote and you actually did your job as a citizen.

Now, if you go against your own opinion and you vote not on the candidate you believe is the best option but on some other candidate due to some idiotic reason, such as "although I hate him at least I believe he has a chance of wining", then you failed your job as a citizen of a democratic state and you contributed to the sad state of affairs.

So, please think a bit about how you vote and why you vote.

Re:forgivness (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#39003919)

I cast each and every vote in the manner that I think will best benefit my country. You're telling me that I should ignore what's best for the country and follow my heart, and tough luck if that causes widespread suffering. Not only that, but that to do otherwise means I'm somehow failing in my duty. Noted, and duly ignored. I will continue to work my ass off in every election to maximize benefit to the country, instead of running off after some Hollywood-inspired dream that things would all be perfect if only everyone followed their heart. That approach only works when you have a benevolent author willing to make it work.

Re:forgivness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39003961)

If all you ever do is switch your vote between the "corporate boot lickers" and the "corporate ass lickers", you're not doing anything to benefit for your country. Vote for the candidates with the best policies, and forget about trying to influence the contest between incompetence and evil.

Re:forgivness (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 2 years ago | (#39004107)

True, but public opinion isn't changed by the fact that 0.2% of the vote went to Generic Third Party #17. Not even a little bit.

I understand that US elections are doomed by that one turn only thing... But even then you are looking at things in an inverted way. It is the pool that must change because of public opinion, not the other way around.

By the way, are your elections for Congress also not representative? Because that is the most important vote you have (yeah, even at the US).

Re:forgivness (1)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 2 years ago | (#39003611)

You can't win them by going completely unnoticed, either. People need to have the sense to use their vote in a useful way. Blowing it on whatever party suits your fancy on election day is simply irresponsible. Vote in the primaries if you care and feel you are not represented. The fact Ron Paul is still bouncing around, however misguided he might be, shows that it is possible to have an effect on the system that way. Otherwise, suck it up and take the lesser evil, since one of the two will win, and I damn sure want it to be the lesser of them if there is an option.

Re:forgivness (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39003261)

IIMO, some level of worseness is acceptable -- 2 or 6 years of crap is bad, but it might be worth it sending a message (over several election cycles) that anyone who places corporate interests above their constituents loses their seat, no ifs or buts,

Re:forgivness (2)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 2 years ago | (#39003603)

Only to be replaced by their friends? What purpose on this earth does effectively making term limits 1 term have relating to the prevention of corruption?

Re:forgivness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39003807)

The guy in the opposite party trying to take a politician's seat is not his friend, even if they're both your enemy.

When pissing off the electorate has a bigger effect on re-electability than losing those fat content-distribution campaign donations, (obvious) corruption becomes less attractive.

Re:forgivness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39003977)

It just gives them more time to hide better and try again next election.

If americans want better government, they better see some ceos and politicians thrown in jail. And yes, the ceos have to do the jail time even if they didn't give the money themselves.
The country needs an electoral law that says what corporations do is different, and worse than what individuals do, with penalties for NOT PREVENTING crimes, as well as comitting them.

You will need an amendment for that, so... yeah I realize it's impossible

Enjoy your trip to dystopia.

Re:forgivness (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#39003287)

I know you're projecting cynicism. This issue did engage so many people that over 10 million did something and 100 million were at least impacted. In a country where only 80 million people vote and the difference between winning and losing is often only a few thousand or hundred thousand depending on the office that can sway some significant change. We may see a November surprise.

Re:forgivness (2)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 2 years ago | (#39003339)

Maybe... OTOH our populace is also terribly apathetic and has almost no long-term political memory. Getting 10 million people to click a link or sign a petition after having the issue thrown in their face all day is a good accomplishment, but how many of those people will a) go to the polls, and b) remember what it was they cared so much about 10 months previously?

I know it's more of that cynicism, but i'm just not convinced it will be a major factor come election time.

Re:forgivness (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39003299)

So you can vote in the other (potentially worse) corporate candidate? Or do you plan to vote for a third party with little chance of winning? If the first, at least do the due diligence of figuring out if the opposition is more fanatical in support of the things you dislike. This is a step I fear most people do not realize is necessary. If the second, well... have fun being a statistical outlier.

Statistical outliers can make or break wannabe presidents, just ask George H.W. Bush or Al Gore. There's your influence.

Re:forgivness (1)

SuperTechnoNerd (964528) | more than 2 years ago | (#39003361)

"So you can vote in the other (potentially worse) corporate candidate? Or do you plan to vote for a third party with little chance of winning? "

Thees are all true statements. But it's about shaking up the status quo, and trying to choosing the lesser evil, and sending a message. And if you trying to say you have lost faith in the whole gosh darn system and just stop giving a shit - I can understand your frustration - I share it. But giving up and doing nothing is not going to help.

"If the first, at least do the due diligence of figuring out if the opposition is more fanatical in support of the things you dislike."

Absolutely. This whole SOPA/PIPA crap has open my eyes wide and I will be looking now very closely at our politicians. A big step for a non-political person like me. I deal in programming and logic. Listening to our lawmakers talk makes me cringe, and projectile vomit in some cases..

Keep the faith

Re:forgivness (1)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 2 years ago | (#39003631)

"But it's about shaking up the status quo, and trying to choosing the lesser evil, and sending a message."

Then do that in the primary. Do that by supporting third parties in the run up to congressional elections. Don't roll out of bed on election day and think that checking the third box on the ballot means anything thing about your ability to overturn the system. When it comes down to it, nothing short of a massive cultural shift is going to overcome the power of the two party system as a whole, and that isn't going to happen; there have been much more interesting periods in American history than this.

Re:forgivness (1)

GreatBunzinni (642500) | more than 2 years ago | (#39003855)

So you can vote in the other (potentially worse) corporate candidate? Or do you plan to vote for a third party with little chance of winning?

Are you aware of what happens if you, or anyone, refuses to vote for "the third party with little chance of winning"? I'll tell you what happens: the third party candidate has little chance of winning.

Think about it.

To be fair... (5, Insightful)

Daetrin (576516) | more than 2 years ago | (#39003171)

I expect with a company the size of Wikipedia, particularly one with Wikipedia's web presence, switching your hosting around isn't really something you can do on the turn of a dime.

On the other side of the coin though (er, so to speak) i wonder if this is really the best tactic. I mean, i couldn't wish for the fallout to land on a more deserving company, but will this affect Wikipedia's bargaining position for similar situations in the future? Threatening to punish people for actions you don't like is just fine (well, assuming you stick to legal methods of course) but if they recant and you follow through on your threats regardless, would the next company you deal with have any reason to recant?

Re:To be fair... (4, Insightful)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#39003213)

switching your hosting around isn't really something you can do on the turn of a dime

Exactly. It does take time, especially for a large organization, to find a suitable replacement for services.

.....but if they recant and you follow through on your threats regardless, would the next company you deal with have any reason to recant?

That's not the point. There is no forgiveness for GoDaddy. Absolute Utter Destruction Required. They KNOW better.

Some actions are not possible to take back. Yes, I will compare it to murder. You just can't take it back. Do I care that the murderer is blubbering in the court room? Nope. Not at all. Fry his ass.

That is what it really comes down too. A deterrent. When we partially hang GoDaddy, cut off their balls, disembowel them, chop of their head, and distribute the remaining portions of their body on spikes to the far reaches of the Internet it will stand as warning to all companies to not support laws that threaten the base functionality of the Internet and a free and open network.

Their cries for mercy fall on deaf ears and hardened resolve.

Re:To be fair... (0)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 2 years ago | (#39003365)

That is what it really comes down too. A deterrent.

Yes, indeed. A deterrent to dealing with Wikipedia.

Seriously, if I were running a hosting company, my first action after Wales' announcement would have been to call my sales department and say "if Wikipedia calls, just hand up on 'em". They can be political on someone else's dime.

Re:To be fair... (4)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#39003391)

Uhhhh... yeah okay.

That might be true if Wikipedia was being unreasonable. If I knew there was a potential big client out there with a lot of media clout that was known to be unreasonable and difficult to work with I would probably pass on servicing them too. However, taking a stance against something like SOPA, which anybody remotely involved with Internet knows is bad, very very bad, is hardly unreasonable.

Saying SOPA is political is like saying we could have rational discourse about the *possibility* of owning African Americans as slaves and starting up our "import business" all over again to compete with China on low cost labor.

No. SOPA is only political in the remotely tangential sense that it involves some politicians. Other than that, there is no rational basis on the pro-SOPA side to enact such dangerous and draconian laws.

Pro life and anti-evolution have more rational arguments and positions than SOPA and could be considered a valid political debate amongst the citizenry. SOPA is just flat out insanity with no possible redeeming virtue towards society in any way, shape, or form.

Political my ass. To characterize it as such it to give it validity. It has none whatsoever.

Re:To be fair... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39003545)

its political because big companies that support SOPA (such as Sony BMG) contribute to election campaigns, and in lobbying "the squeaky wheel gets the grease" and "money talks"

so, "political my ass" my ass

what you think is unreasonable has absolutely fuck all to do with anything

in fact, unless Wikipedia contributes to election campaigns (doubtful), what it says also makes fuck all difference

I hate SOPA as much as the next guy, but at least I can avoid delusional ignorance and accept reality

the only way that you or anyone else can stop it is to either:

(a) pay a fuckload of money to the right people

(b) start a nationwide citizen revolt that brings the economy to a standstill

good luck with those... SOPA will happen, whether you or I like it or not

Re:To be fair... (4, Informative)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#39003583)

It's still not political and I am delusional, ignorant, or refusing to accept reality.

Political, in the contemporary sense, and in this context, means that it is an argument about laws, regulations, policy, or a school of thought on how society should be administered to the benefit of the society. There can two or more sides to the argument, but what they all have in common is at least the pretense that it is beneficial towards society and serves to protect it.

I deny SOPA that status. While politicians may be involved in it, there is no valid discussion, no valid arguments, and no valid sides supporting SOPA. That is why it is not political. It is entirely one-sided. No other argument in government can claim such distinction. Not FISA, not the Patriot Act, not Abortion, not Gay Marriage, etc. Every single one them has some sort of basis to support it. Some sort of rationale in which the American Way of Life (tm) is protected and allowed to flourish, even if I may disagree with it.

SOPA is pure corruption and abuse in its most distilled form. It is the most direct assault on intelligence, liberty, and common sense that I have been witness to in my entire life.

I don't know of any stronger terms that I can state just how evil SOPA *is*. For me to acknowledge it as political means that it there is some sort of public interest served in the debate. I just can't see that or say it.

Re:To be fair... (1)

Patch86 (1465427) | more than 2 years ago | (#39003519)

"Don't take their money- they might not keep giving us money forever!"

It's probably for the best that you aren't running a hosting company.

Re:To be fair... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39003245)

Except Godaddy didn't really recant.

Re:To be fair... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39003251)

As far as I'm aware, Wikipedia does not depend on GoDaddy for anything other than domain registrar services. They don't use them for DNS. They don't use them for hosting of any kind. So actually, yes, they literally can switch to another registrar on the turn of a dime. I've seen it done with corporate sites fielding millions of page views a month, and downtime should be precisely zero. Nothing changes aside from the registrar name in the whois info.

Re:To be fair... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39003415)

switching your hosting around isn't really something you can do on the turn of a dime.

Fascinating, except Wikipedia isn't using GoDaddy for hosting; just registration and DNS.

Re:To be fair... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39003911)

Let's not confuse domain name registration with hosting.

Wikipedia needs a whole ROOMfull of servers for its operation, and likely does that in-house.

Go-daddy supplies domain name registration service, dns from the root, to .org, to wikipedia.org
affilias(which runs .org) would probably be a good place to start looking if you're wikipedia, for those domain name services, and yes, they offer .com and other names too.

Fun, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39003239)

Doubt GoDaddy cares at all. How many domain names does Wikipedia own? Times $8.95/yr or whatever....

GoDaddy will seriously not even notice.

It'll make some geeks feel good though I suppose!

Re:Fun, but... (4, Insightful)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#39003255)

That's being a bit simplistic.

If I walked into a local restaurant and received poor service and bad tasting food, the people there might be a bit dismissive when I complain loudly and tell them that I am going "blog that shit all over the Internet".

Now if President Obama walked in (unlikely I know) and then mentioned how shitty the place was to the White House press core, it might be a little more devastating.

Both of us spent the same amount of money, and represent the same amount of loss in the future on an individual basis, but one certainly stings a bit more.

Re:Fun, but... (2)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#39003577)

Oddly enough you don't need to be President to destroy a restaurants reputation(or anything's reputation). Hell, you don't even need to be important. You just need to know important people, or be close enough to important people to do it. I know that whole six degrees or four degrees of separation thing is fine and dandy but it does work.

I've seen it in action on more than one occasion where businesses were blackballed by an entire community based on the word of mouth of two people who were effectively nobodies, but had friends of friends who were well known.

Re:Fun, but... (2)

JockTroll (996521) | more than 2 years ago | (#39003595)

Oddly enough you don't need to be President to destroy a restaurants reputation(or anything's reputation). Hell, you don't even need to be important. You just need to know important people, or be close enough to important people to do it.

Not even that, really. You only need to know where to buy live bait, and release some vermin in the place. Most joints need to have the kitchen visible from the dining area, so it's not that difficult to do the deed. Then call the public hygiene office or whatever, case closed.

I won't be donating to Wikipedia (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39003275)

GoDaddy took an unpopular position that really didn't stand to give it any gains. The only explanation that made any sense is that they believed it was morally right.

I don't care if I disagree with the solution. It's rare to see a company taking damage to do what it believes is right, and I'm not going to punish them for that.

It's amazing how many self-indulgent individuals out there choose to see GoDaddy's support of SOPA as an ATTACK against individual freedom instead of viewing it as a defense against criminals. That's a critical distinction, because even if you know the method of solving the problem is bogus, the realization that GoDaddy is supporting it with good intentions is enough to make any decent human being forgive them.

Evidently Wikipedia is not run by decent human beings. Then again, I guess we don't need this clue to figure it out. Anyone who uses an enormous position of power and influence to publicly demean and damage other people is nothing short of evil. It is SICK to put people out of work simply because you disagree with their ideas on how to protect people.

Re:I won't be donating to Wikipedia (3, Insightful)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 2 years ago | (#39003587)

I though you had staked out the moral high ground very neatly, but in the last paragraph you went all self-indulgence about WP and fell back to the level of choosing sides based on personal prejudice, like the rest of us mere mortals.

The fact is that most people believe they are doing TheRightThing(TM) most of the time. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Ivan the terrible, OBL, George Washington, you, me, grandma, and the wiggles, did not get to where they did by believing what they were doing was evil. For example if you could ask OBL what he did with his life he would probably tell you with genuine sincerity that he spent it "fighting evil". So from my POV good intentions are not a valid excuse for supporting racketeering via congressional decree, particularly for a corporation one would expect has the expertise to build decision trees that would likely foresee the potential harm. If it wasn't on their decision tree before all the hoohaa, it is now.

Being generous I'd say GD displayed admirable self-skepticisim on the issue. Being cynical I'd say GD are like any other company, what they fear most is becoming a public pariah.

I finally quit godaddy this week (4, Informative)

alex_guy_CA (748887) | more than 2 years ago | (#39003283)

I called up hover.com. Spoke with someone on the phone, gave her my godaddy login info. She did all of the work for me. I'm done with godaddy, and I can't think that there is any possible way it could have been easier.

And this costs GoDaddy what, $2.95? (4, Informative)

Animats (122034) | more than 2 years ago | (#39003289)

And this costs GoDaddy what, $2.95? It's just domain registration. Wikipedia isn't hosted by GoDaddy.

There's a hierarchy of registrars. At the top is MarkMonitor, which registers domains like "ford.com". If you have to ask how much their registration costs, you can't afford it. This is where you register a "must stay up" domain. If anything goes wrong with a MarkMonitor registration, alarms go off and teams of DNS admins and lawyers swing into action.

Network Solutions is a reasonable registrar for corporate domains. They have "amazon.com", for example. If something goes wrong, you can usually get them ont he phone and get them to do something.

Much further down is GoDaddy. But they're not the bottom. Below GoDaddy are the bulk registrars, like Enom. That's where you register junk domains for link farms, domaining, and other dubious activities. At the bottom are the registrars in the ICANN list that don't even have valid contact information. It's not clear what they're doing, but it's probably not good.

Re:And this costs GoDaddy what, $2.95? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39003925)

This was true ten years ago. It isn't anymore.

As an aside, NetSol hovers somewhere just above GoDaddy for shady, craphole companies.

Why so long? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39003309)

If they are going to transfer why haven't they yet? It took me about 2 hours for the entire process to transfer ALL of my domains from one registrar to another, and could have gone quicker than that.

Have you ever tried to switch from GoDaddy?? (5, Informative)

ukemike (956477) | more than 2 years ago | (#39003375)

Have you ever tried to switch from GoDaddy? I'm sure they're just having difficultly figuring out HOW to unregister from GoDaddy. It took me about 5 tries over the course of three months and I only had one domain to deal with.

Re:Have you ever tried to switch from GoDaddy?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39003411)

I had no such problem. It was fairly painless to switch both of my domains away. Unlock domains, ask for a verification code, start the transfer domain, accept one or two email and it's done.

Re:Have you ever tried to switch from GoDaddy?? (4, Interesting)

Microlith (54737) | more than 2 years ago | (#39003425)

Funny, I had a domain that was registered with GoDaddy for 9 years and I was swapped over to Gandi.net within an hour or less.

Re:Have you ever tried to switch from GoDaddy?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39003581)

Lucky you. GoDaddy created invalid authorization keys for several of my domains. They also "mysteriously" caused delays of a day and more on several other domains. I've only got 15 domains, but it took more than a week before all domains had transferred away successfully.

Re:Have you ever tried to switch from GoDaddy?? (3, Funny)

Frankie70 (803801) | more than 2 years ago | (#39003909)

I'm sure they're just having difficultly figuring out HOW to unregister from GoDaddy.

Isn't there a Wikipedia article on how to unregister from GoDaddy?

Re:Have you ever tried to switch from GoDaddy?? (1)

gweihir (88907) | more than 2 years ago | (#39003927)

No problems here. I tried a domain I use for testing first, no issues at all moving it to namecheap. That was after GoDaddy sabotaged them and they called GoDaddy out on it though. Moved my other 3 domains a few days later, again no issues at all.

A facepalm moment. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39003435)

Wikipedia has become the worlds foremost authority of information sharing. Thus being one of the most dependable educational tools around. Why on earth would a big company like this, stoops to some jack in the box, shit handed company some wanker made in his basement? I would rather pay 35 dollars a year through register.com and be safe in the knowledge, that this company will never take sides, and never play around with DNS. They value business not opinions. That includes SOPA/PIPA supporters. (*flips the middle finger at the arse gnawing vermin*).

And THERE IS a way to transfer it OFF of godaddy with ease.
-MAKE AN ACCOUNT ON REGISTER.COM....
-TRANSFER THE WIKIPEDIA OWNERSHIP over to REGISTER.COM...
-RESET THE IP and Alias names in Account settings..

It doesn't take a rocket science to swing through a loop hole bigger than obama's ahole!

"Wikipedia Hasn't Forgiven GoDaddy" (1)

thatskinnyguy (1129515) | more than 2 years ago | (#39003439)

And nor have I. I've transferred all of my domains and cancelled all services I had through them. This was not without great expense, but fuck them. I would rather give my money to someone that doesn't want to act as a cop.

yeah? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39003515)

I did though. Fuck SOPA fuck Go Daddy

Jimmy Wales is holding out .... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39003571)

For a blow job from Danica Patrick. Based on the commercials he figures he's got a good shot.

This is not like moving your blog's DNS (3, Informative)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 2 years ago | (#39003877)

People don't seem to get that for a seriously popular site that must not go down, it's just not the same class of phenomenon as picking a registrar more or less at random (the same process by which people ended up on GoDaddy in the first place) to move your blog's DNS to. It's literally taken weeks to make absolutely sure that the transition damn well will go smoothly. This on top of, like, the actual work the WMF is supposed to do. AIUI, there should be an announcement next week or so.

Probably not an easy process (1)

maroberts (15852) | more than 2 years ago | (#39003881)

I presume that if Wikipedia moves its domain name registrations, it is probably also doing some due diligence to assure itself that any company it does work with can provide both the level of service and also has policies that are roughly in line with its views.

I'm not sure what the technical difficulty is, because GoDaddy only appears to provide its domain name registrations, not provide the Wikimedia servers themselves, which appear to be in colocation facilities [wikimedia.org]. Maybe someone can explain if there are any such issues??

Maybe Wikipedia could establish its own domain name registrar? The fixed cost seems to be only about $4000.....

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...