• flashgnash@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      That’s a horrible thing the British government have done

      I’m not sure that’s a good reason not to use the domain though, if we didn’t use anything that horrible people had a hand in making we wouldn’t be talking here right now

      • Amju Wolf@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        11 months ago

        They’re two separate(ish) issues.

        But it’s still a bad idea to use national TLDs for stuff that has nothing to do with that nation.

        Granted, is ICANN wasn’t just a money-grabbing machine with no forward thinking they wouldn’t give nations clearly “generally desirable” gTLDs, but since they did already that doesn’t mean they should be misused.

        • davehtaylor@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          It’s really frustrating in general how TLDs have been misused and abused over the years. They used to have very specific meanings and usages. Now anyone can register a .net or .org, and don’t have to prove they’re a network service provider or a non-profit.

          People also forget that URLs designate a hierarchy, reading from right to left. For example, take the URL app.foobar.com This designates

          . -> There’s an understood period at the end that’s not typed. But it designates the root (or, well, top in this case) of the hierarchy
          com -> The commercial space (hence top level domain)
          foobar -> Company named Foobar in the commercial space
          app -> The app site/service/etc from Foobar

          If you’re using a domain like foobar.tv, you’re saying you’re an organization called Foobar based in Tuvalu. There’s still plenty of restricted TLDs (.gov and .mil e.g.), but everything has been thrown to the wind for the sake of cleverness, and spammers have ruined anything else that’s not .com for your average user. Your personal info site generally isn’t a commercial page, so .com doesn’t make sense. But other gTLDs get blocked by default by so many admins, it’s pointless to try.

        • flashgnash@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          Perhaps I just don’t see why countries need their own extensions anyway (other than ones reserved for government websites to avoid scams, but at the point of being available for public use that kinda falls down)

          • master5o1@lemmy.nz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Local companies may have similar names to others that exist overseas.

            To require them to be in a globally common non-regionalised pool of domain names is more likely to increase scam risks.

            Should the various regional companies of the Vodafone brand be forced to have all their world wide customers sign in to a global parent organisation Vodafone.com? Is it not better for the regionally specific customer portal be vodafone.com.au and vodafone.co.uk?

            • flashgnash@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Yeah that makes sense I suppose.

              I still think for the vast majority of io websites I’ve seen they probably wouldn’t clash with any companies that need portals in those regions

              There’s also a large amount of first come first served with domains regardless of what extension they’re using though, if there’s no legislation around who can use what extension I’m still not convinced it’s that big a deal

          • Amju Wolf@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Because a lot of the content on national TLDs is relevant only for people of that nation. It helps with name clashes and pushes off stuff that doesn’t make sense in any of the more “global” TLDs.

            And for governments, banks and other institutions there should really be some official standard where they pick a single second-level domain and use it for stuff that needs to be secure so anyone anywhere can be sure it’s controlled by the correct entity and not a scammer.

              • Amju Wolf@pawb.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                Unfortunately not; the UK is more or less an exception because they were there very early and copied the US model.

                Time has shown though that everyone wants second level domains anyway so even .uk is now open to anyone and they have the weird hold-over .co.uk and similar domains.

      • flora_explora@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        As I understand it, this isn’t a resolved conflict in the past but rather an ongoing one. So yes, it does matter if you decide to give an oppressive British company or the Taliban money. And apart from that, as a German, I’m very much aware that we are not responsible for the wrongdoings of our ancestors but are responsible not to forget and thus repeat them. People who were victims under colonialism or any other form of oppression deserve at least recognition and compensation. Just continuing to live with the current condition shaped by oppression means supporting the oppression.

        • flashgnash@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          By living in the UK I am giving the British government money, there’s not much I can do about that short of moving to another country

          Unless the people who conquered that island and are keeping it conquered are also the ones directly responsible for the domain name?

          And if they are are they really keeping that area under control just for the extension? Can’t imagine it makes nearly enough money to pay for the military occupation there

          • flora_explora@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Well, obviously by living in the UK or a European country you benefit from (neo)colonialism and capitalism quite a lot. People here do have a certain responsibility, although more so in making their government and the involved economy take responsibility for their actions. It certainly is a strange position to be in, because you cannot really live ethically under capitalism. But we should still strive to change this, to abolish capitalism and to make the world a better place for everyone to live in. Just seeing that the world is unfair and continuing to exploit people for your own good is imo unethical.

            Btw occupation is definitely not only based on military force but more often than not by capitalist exploitation. And occupation doesn’t work in a way where you have one distinct group of people conquering some land or people. It rather is the combination of administrative and economic power, i.e. various companies exerting pressure, to maintain control over a people. So yes, if a company is benefitting from the capitalist exploitation of these people and is therefore continuing this exploitation, I would think they are in part responsible for the situation. And it would be unethical to support this domain with your money. Of course, it is a question of degree, because it certainly isn’t as bad as directly giving the Taliban money but worse than giving the money to a less problematic country.

            It is a bit like paying ExxonMobil, Coca-Cola or Nestlé for a hypothetical service. Do you really want to support them? If you have a choice, use something else. If you don’t have a choice, protest against not having it.

      • Zworf@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        It’s also the Americans IMO. The British were just doing it to provide the Americans with a base at Diego Garcia. Vassal state and all. Are the British free of blame? Absolutely not, but they didn’t do this of their own accord. I think both parties share the blame.

        UN resolutions or not I doubt they will give this up especially now with China’s expanding influence in that region. It’s not that close to China but it’s a pretty serious midway point for refuelling.

        PS I had no idea that the .io domain was for BIOT, thanks.