Libya Takes Hard Line On Link Shortening Domains 354
Hugh Pickens writes "BBC reports that Libyan government has removed an adult-friendly link-shortening service from the web, saying that it fell afoul of local laws in a crackdown that could come as a blow to other url shortening services such as bit.ly, which is particularly popular on Twitter where all messages have to be limited to 140 characters. 'Other ly domains are being deregistered and removed without warning,' says Co-founder of vb.ly Ben Metcalfe. 'We eventually discovered that the domain has been seized because the content of our website, in their opinion, fell outside of Libyan Islamic/Sharia Law.' Alaeddin ElSharif from NIC.ly, the body that controls Libyan web addresses, told vb.ly co-founder Violet Blue that a picture of her on the website had sparked the removal. 'I think you'll agree that a picture of a scantily clad lady with some bottle in her hand isn't what most would consider decent or family friendly,' says ElSharif. 'While letters "vb" are quite generic and bear no offensive meaning in themselves, they're being used as a domain name for an openly admitted "adult-friendly url shortener." It is when you promote your site being solely for adult uses ... that we as a Libyan registry have an issue.'"
thinkoftheadults (Score:2)
The Picture in Question (Score:5, Informative)
Won't anybody stop this insanity and think of the adults who crave link-shortened pictures of "a scantily clad lady with some bottle in her hand"?
I wouldn't even call her 'scantily clad' but you can judge for yourself here [talkingpointsmemo.com].
Re:The Picture in Question (Score:4, Funny)
as far as I can tell SFW in even some of the more restrictive environs in the US.
Although, while not scantily clad, I think she is someone I'd still prefer to see in a Burqa.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> I wouldn't even call her 'scantily clad'
Her head isn't covered and her arms are bare. The bottle is also quite offensive to conservative moslems as it implies alcohol.
Re:The Picture in Question (Score:5, Insightful)
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why you don't want to let any religion get their hands on your government - whether it's a nutjob cult set up by an early 19th century lunatic, a 7th century pedophile, or even a rather kindly gentleman whose major accomplishment was sitting on his ass under a tree for a month and a half.
Ultimately, we want to get religion out of government as much as possible. If something is universal - say, prohibitions on murder or theft - then we can certainly all agree to implement them in a secular manner. But I shouldn't be restricted from buying some beer on my one day off each week just because a bunch of fundamentalist shitheads think I should be wasting my morning praying to their sun god.
Re:The Picture in Question (Score:4, Informative)
I read a report about a Millersville PA government school teacher being FIRED for having a similar photo online - drinking alcohol. They said it sends the wrong message to her students.
>>>you don't want to let any religion get their hands on your government -
And yet we already do (see my last sentence).
Re:The Picture in Question (Score:5, Informative)
That being said, can we please not make this story about Islam?
This has nothing do to with Islam or cultural relativism and everything to do with Lybia being a totalitarian regime. Gaddafi [wikimedia.org] is the local thug and dictator, but he is not an islamist by far. He's an arab nationalist, an ideology that is largely secular (very much like Saddam Hussein was), yet he has supported and backed terrorism several times in the past (Lockerbie Bombing [wikimedia.org]). Please try to have a wider perspective, most of the dictators in power in Muslim countries don't give a shit about Islam, they are only looking out for themselves. They might use religion to try to legitimize their regimes or as a populist tool to fight their democratic opponents.
This is what happen we you do business with autocratic regimes that have no respect for the law or for basic human rights and liberties. The only real rule is the whim of the local leader/prince.
Switzerland learned the hard way, when Lybia kept two Swiss nationals hostage during several months [wikimedia.org] as retaliation. This because the Swiss police arrested Gaddafi's son for beating his servants and treating them as slaves.
Bottom line: If you do chose to do business in authoritarian non-democratic countries, be prepared to pay the cost and lose it all at any point in time.
Re:The Picture in Question (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the problem with religious types. It is possible to be ethical without being religious. Recognizing certain fundamentals about treating people fairly and intelligently does not require a mandate from a higher power, nor the promise of damnation for failing to live up to that ideal. Further, religion has perpetrated as many evils, if not MORE evils in the world than anything else. Multiple Crusades, for instance, or protecting pedophiles in the name of sparing the Church a tarnished name.
So yeah, get religion the fuck out of government. If you can't be ethical without religion, you are NOT an ethical person.
Re:The Picture in Question (Score:4, Insightful)
Further, religion has perpetrated as many evils, if not MORE evils in the world than anything else.
Let's be clear here--it's not the religion that's perpetrating the evils, it's the people in it. It would be more proper to say that "many evils have been perpetrated in the name of religion...". If you have a perfect religion, it could/would still be corrupted and distorted by the imperfect people who administer and follow it.
If religion didn't exist, people would blame their bad behavior on something else. Video games, or rock and roll music perhaps...
Re:The Picture in Question (Score:4, Insightful)
If religion didn't exist, people would blame their bad behavior on something else. Video games, or rock and roll music perhaps...
There's been a hell of a lot of evil perpetrated in the name of "democracy" too.
Re:The Picture in Question (Score:5, Informative)
I wouldn't even call her 'scantily clad'
While not being an expert, Islam in general expects at least modest dress for women that includes not having bare arms. So the definition of scantily clad is region dependent.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
... the definition of scantily clad is religion dependent.
FTFY.
Re:The Picture in Question (Score:5, Interesting)
Uh, no. The accepted conception of 'scantily clad' in the US has changed dramatically in the last 100 years in the US, without as dramatic a change in religion. (The delta between ankle-length bathing costumes for women and Lady GaGa's outfits is a lot wider than the difference in US religious beliefs from 1910 to 2010.)
Re:The Picture in Question (Score:5, Insightful)
Values are completely different today, and no where is it more prevalent than religion.
Except that even within religions the accepted morality varies by geographic region. For example the morality of followers of Catholicism is widely different between such areas as Brasil, the US, Italy and Ireland. And thats not even getting into other branches of Christianity. That is why I said region and deliberately chose NOT to say Religion.
Re: (Score:2)
Region is only partially correct because people with similar cultures tend to cluster geographically. Religion is more correct. If a fundamentalist Muslim moves to America, he doesn't magically change morality. If you view each sect of Catholicism, to use your example, as a sub-religion, then it makes a lot of sense.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Quran say nothing about how women should dress, other then covering their chest.
Few religions have any actual dress code. Islam is butchered by the savages that use their Gods name for war and oppression.
The Quran speak mostly of peace and love, and acceptance of others.
It even says that responsible christians and jews, will go to haven.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It even says that responsible christians and jews, will go to haven.
What about responsible neo-pagans?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
GP is correct in a sense that Sharia does not specifically prescribe any form of dress for females (or males, for that matter). It only says that it should be "modest":
And say that the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, thei
Re:The Picture in Question (Score:5, Funny)
I wouldn't even call her 'scantily clad'
While not being an expert, Islam in general expects at least modest dress for women that includes not having bare arms. So the definition of scantily clad is region dependent.
Thank God for the USA, where the right to bare arms is enshrined in the Consitution.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank God for the USA, where the right to bare arms is enshrined in the Consitution.
I thought it had to do with hunting and Bear arms?
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it had to do with tracking-down and killing dictators like Nero, Napoleon, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Saddam, and so on - in order to restore liberty.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I thought it had to do with tracking-down and killing dictators like Nero, Napoleon, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Saddam, and so on - in order to restore liberty.
So of the dictators you listed, how many were tracked down and killed by their own armed populace?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Stop hurting the bears and be happy that you are allowed to display your arms bare.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, that's the point. Cultures that think pictures of women who are "clad" (which is just a fancy word for "wearing clothes") are very probably suppressing their women.
I would stop short of saying that women in these cultures are abused or mistreated because I don't know the situation. But my impression is that making them adhere to a particular dress code is denying them a basic human right.
On the other hand, forcing "Western" values on Libya doesn't seem all that fair either. So let them be free
Re:The Picture in Question (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, that's the point. Cultures that think pictures of women who are "clad" (which is just a fancy word for "wearing clothes") are very probably suppressing their women.
And people from Brasil look at what the US norm is and shake their head. I have a female friend from Brasil, who after a business trip to the US she told me how she brought her normal Brasilian bathing suit and felt weird wearing it around Americans. The next trip she borrowed her mothers bathing suit because it was more modest and fitted in by US standards. So by your definition and her experience the US is suppressing its women. And dare I mention Prairie dresses?
Re: (Score:2)
>>>she brought her normal Brasilian bathing suit and felt weird wearing it around Americans.
Really?
(packing bags)
But seriously: Not all Americans are prudes. There are topless beaches and also nude beaches. Perhaps your friend should have gone to hang-out with those people instead of the Puritans. ;-)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So by your definition and her experience the US is suppressing its women.
I have no idea what a normal Brasilian bathing suit looks like, but men are allowed to go topless more places than women are. That can most definitely be called suppression.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the problem is in America, women like their swimwear to STAY ON when they get in the water. Men don't mind one way or another :-)
Ironically, most people wearing swimwear don't actually swim; they just sunbathe.
Re: (Score:2)
...and this is why everyone hates the U.S.
one way or another (through war or election) those people chose their own government. if that government is not acting in their own best interest it is just a matter of time before its people will choose another.
so let the government make the rules, until their people go to war, or hold a new election, we have to assume this is what they want.
Re: (Score:2)
riiiight, this process has worked so well liberating the rest of the Islamic world.
Re:The Picture in Question (Score:4, Insightful)
and how has meddling with them been doing? seems it only makes them hate us and turn their anger in our direction.
I really don't care if they are liberated or not. how has democracy been working for our own freedom lately?
Re:The Picture in Question (Score:4, Insightful)
one way or another (through war or election) those people chose their own government. if that government is not acting in their own best interest it is just a matter of time before its people will choose another.
Tricky topic there. Did they choose their government? If some asshat comes in, with a full military, and threatens to kill and rape everyone there, and managed to convert some youths (generally) into zealot shock troops to bring terror to the local populace, can you really say it is a choice? If it comes down to support General Asshat or died, and have your family killed, is it really a choice? On one, almost purely literal, level; yes. On another, it isn't, though, since it is a coerced choice, and thus barely a choice at all.
What good is freedom if your dead, and your family raped or slaughtered? Personal safety and your family is generally more important than everyone else, so you'll generally choose these over dying for a nebulous, and potentially unsuccessful cause. This does not mean you endorse, or chose, your government.
Also a government is a wild beast, you can agree with some bits, while hating others vehemently (this is how I feel about the US, I sure as hell didn't choose some of our policies, I was just born here, that doesn't mean I have a shred of control).
I've spent a lot of time thinking about this, being a philosophy major and associating with a couple people working on their masters in foreign policy. On one hand we have to agree that people should have the right to choose their religion and government. On the other hand do people have the right to inflict their views on others? Is depriving the choice in the former worth allowing the latter? Also, can people freely choose oppression?
Personally I think not. Yes, some Muslim (for example, not to single them out) women would choose their limited (repressed, even) position in society, and completely buy their societies masculine and religious line. But this is all they know, since they are barred meaningful education or experience of the world. Is this choice a real choice, since it isn't an educated choice? Also is this a choice that someone else has the right to make for them?
Education is the precursor to choice. You cannot make a free choice without an awareness of the options. If you repress this awareness you are oppressing choice, thus there is no choice. Women didn't choose to be restricted to burkas, even if they think they did.
If your country restricts information, and doesn't have elections it is a tyranny. Pure and simple.
Is this a justification to outside action? This is debatable. I think it is, though not necessarily a justification for war or military action.
I can see why the US might not be the best person to help allow people to choose their own mess, though. We have a bad history of it, especially on fighting people's choice of economic systems (translation, deciding not to kneel to US corporations), and their choice in electing leaders who are on a different end of the political spectrum than us. But sadly most of the rest of the world is more likely to just enter the relativistic nonsense loop and say "its their culture, thus it is okay". Or the whole "we can't inflict our culture on others", when the question isn't "culture", but "freedom to be an individual".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, good, thanks for the link, you'd think it would be something that would be incredibly obvious to include in the story, but apparently not. Either that or I'm giving too much credit to the BBC.
I suppose I should be outraged by this, except:
1. I hate URL shorteners.
2. It's not like there isn't a free market for domains. Don't like the Libyan rules, create a domain somewhere else.
Well, I Did Include It in a Summary Before pickens (Score:5, Informative)
Ah, good, thanks for the link, you'd think it would be something that would be incredibly obvious to include in the story, but apparently not.
I included it in my summary [slashdot.org] that I submitted a half hour before pickens but they selected his instead because mine was voted down to purple in firehose for some reason. Guess I wrote the wrong headline as I've got the same quotes he does plus the picture.
ly sites smackdown (Score:2)
The funniest aspect of this whole thing is the ultra-cool black turtleneck set with a whole list of Ajaxy Web 2.0 gradient-fill, extra white-space, pastel color sites from here to Timbuktu getting smacked down by ... ultra uncool Libya.
Did anybody know Libya owned .ly before this?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
A better question is why is this country even allowed to own a tld. Time to centralize control of DNS in a locale with better (nobody's perfect) free speech and neutrality laws. Libya can build their own internet if they want a sharia compliant experience.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A better question is why oyu are anti-self determination and anti-democracy. Let Libya run its own affairs w/o interference. Would you want your neighbor to act as a "central authority" telling you when to paint your house & mow your lawn? Well neither does Libya. They want to run their OWN affairs, not be dictated to.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Would you want your neighbor to act as a "central authority" telling you when to paint your house & mow your lawn?
Spoken like someone who's never heard of a homeowner's association.
Re:ly sites smackdown (Score:4, Insightful)
So, you think you should get free speech but not Libya?
LY is the code for Libya, it's for them to decide how to administer it, just like it's for my country to decide how to administer .UK and for North Korea to handle .KP (which stopped working last month).
Re:ly sites smackdown (Score:4, Insightful)
Libya has shown that they do not deserve to be in charge of a tld that happens to be a common English suffix. They have no inherent right to it, so this is just an issue of expedience and user experience for English speakers.
Okay, Libya has no inherent right to the TLD that most closely denotes the name of their country ... but "we" (the US? the English-speaking world? the United Nations?) have the inherent right to take it away from them ... because it "happens to be a common English suffix"?
Are you actually listening to yourself?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, its not "more useful" to us. It's a stupid grammar hack that people think is funny. It's the FIPS 10-4 code for Libya -- https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_FIPS_country_codes [wikimedia.org] -- and I'd argue that keeping with in FIPS and ISO standards is more "useful" than being able to have the domain going-swimming.ly or whatever stupid shit the kids are doing these days in goatse.cx-like fashion.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay let's agree that neither of the groups have a right...
I don't think you're going to get much agreement on that either. The country TLD system wasn't created to create 200 or so TLDs which sound like the end of words because people don't like putting the whole word in the second level and having an appropriate TLD. It was created so that there would be no regional dispute over names. It was created to categorize sites regionally or, in the case of com, net, ord, edu, mil and the other TLDs, based on some other criteria.
Now the fact that countries have realized
Different culture, different opinions (Score:5, Informative)
Depends on what you consider moral or immoral in your culture.
A lot of folk howled with laughter in Europe when middle America made a fuss about Janet Jackson showing off her body during Superbowl one year, in mainland Europe you'll see advertising hoardings promoting perfume, moisturisers etc with half naked models and nobody even blinks. While on the other hand a lot of Europeans freak out at aspects of US gun culture that pass without comment across the Atlantic. All over the world people have different opinions on what is right and what is wrong.
You want to use a Libyan DNS, I guess you have to abide by Libyan rules.... A classic case of a global economy confronting local norms and attitudes. Who is right and who is wrong? how do you decide? (wish I had the answer but alas I don't.....)
Re:Different culture, different opinions (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of folk howled with laughter in Europe when middle America made a fuss about Janet Jackson
Actually to be fair a lot of people in the US also couldn't understand what the problem was. However those who complained about it had the louder voice.
Re: (Score:2)
...and bigger guns.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>...and bigger guns.
That's what she said!
"This is my rifle, this is my gun. One is for fighting, one is for fun."
Re: (Score:2)
>> "So a national broadcaster should make sure that it passes the muster in all of the areas it broadcasts to, shouldn't it?"
No, it shouldn't. There are communities in America were religion defines the community. They don't get to tell me what's OK for TV.
There are people take offense to everything produced after the 50's B&W Leave it to Beaver era of TV. You might recall there was a time you couldn't say 'pregnant' on television. People said words like "Gosh" and "Golly" when they were upset.
Ther
Re:Different culture, different opinions (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
in mainland Europe you'll see advertising hoardings promoting perfume, moisturisers etc with half naked models and nobody even blinks.
In all of Europe you'll see half naked advertising models. It's fully naked models than people in some countries blink about [soliscompany.com] (NSFW outside Europe -- includes a picture of a banned [by the industry self-regulator] perfume advert).
Re: (Score:2)
Ah ... looking at the photo, its not the nudity but the pose that would have caused objection. Very sexual.
Warning, long and meandering post ahead (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's look at day to day gun ownership. What are the two main reasons for owning guns in the United States? Self defense and the ability to overthrow
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, Jesus too, he tells women not to touch him in John 20:17 presumably because they are unclean, and commands a man to touch him ten verses later.
Not really, it looks more like this was a translation error [dtl.org].
Actually, she was clinging to him (not merely intending to touch him), and he basically told her: stop clinging to me, but instead go out and preach the word.
Re: (Score:2)
The apologetics you linked to hand waves through the conditional context with some subjective stuff that could be reasonable if you make positive
Re: (Score:2)
What a ridiculous equivalence you've drawn. Hopefully it was unintentional. If you think Jesus telling a woman to stop touching him is on par Mohammed's actions with women, you're wrong.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
. Ew, cooties! Bunch of superstitious chauvinists need to grow the fuck up.
I'd much rather they died off without spreading their mindvirus to the next generation.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Goatse
Their rules, their game (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Rather stupid to register a domain of any value in a country as loony as Libya, though.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well, when you want short domain names you have to go to rather loony countries for them to not be taken yet.
I don't get it (Score:2, Insightful)
Short domain names can be had on any TLD.
I fail to see what's so special about an URL ending in .ly, apart from the smug cleverness that some punsters might conceive.
No one is going to type in such an URL, and clicking works just the same across TLD's. And if you are complaining about 'all the good domains are taken' perhaps you could lobby for the squaters to be rounded up and shot.
Re: (Score:2)
That, apparently, is the entire point.
sil.ly, no?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, when you want short domain names you have to go to rather loony countries for them to not be taken yet.
I'm not sure if I'm arguing for or against your point here, but the .us domain is rather empty.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't believe no one has snatched up duf.us, th.us or fung.us yet.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Seems fine to me. You don't have to play on their turf
But but but it's short! And it's easier to make funny words in English with that TLD! Therefore, we as American Internetians should have full jurisdiction and sovereignty over it! It's in the constitution, people!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but are the owners of those domains actuall Lybians? If not, then I don't think you have any right to whatever domain name you'd want or like.
And the Lybian registrar has all the rights to take your domain name for actual Lybians.
Re: (Score:2)
They have all the rights huh? Who gave them those rights? They are part of an international network, maybe it's time to have some minimal standards of free speech and neutrality. If they want to retain their Islamic imperatives, then they can build their own Islamic internet.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait until they see this one. (Score:5, Funny)
appropriat.ly (Score:4, Funny)
dastard.ly
Why .ly? (Score:2)
Why do these sites have to register in Lybia, of all places?
Why not .us? toysr.us, come2.us, go2.us, etc, are just as short.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When I search for b.us, I get "b.us is an invalid name." What's up with that?
"by.us is an invalid name."
Seems like a minimum of 3 characters is required, I didn't know that.
Re: (Score:2)
bit.us just sounds wrong though.
VB (Score:5, Funny)
While letters 'vb' are quite generic and bear no offensive meaning in themselves
He's obviously not a software developer.
Sharia is a bit of a red herring (Score:5, Insightful)
If US states had top-level domains under their control, I can imagine quite a few that would try to do the same thing.
It's just conservative cultural mores, which come in all religious flavors. Libya doesn't want its domain used for sexual matters, Texas won't let you buy or sell vibrators, and I think some places still enforce the sabbath so that few businesses are open on Sunday. Connecticut doesn't allow take-out sales of alcohol on Sundays. Various localities in the US ban alcohol sales altogether. John Ashcroft covered up a public statue's boob with a curtain when he was AG.
Talking about sharia just puts it into "oooh, scary muslims! They're so alien and different!" territory.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe, but sharia law is scary, and these actions are consistent with it. So, maybe, maybe not.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If US states had top-level domains under their control, I can imagine quite a few that would try to do the same thing.
I can imagine winning the lottery, that doesn't mean it's going to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
"I can imagine winning the lottery, that doesn't mean it's going to happen."
Try buying a sex toy in Texas. Must be all that sharia law, keeping people from buying vibrators.
Re: (Score:2)
Since when did the actual cause of something become a red herring??
Would you say fundamentalist Christianity is a red herring too in relation to Texas's enforcement of the sabbath? Or is this excuse business reserved for sharia?
Right... (Score:3, Informative)
So, the US and NL and BE and DE etc governments have NOT sought out such control over the domains for their countries BUT this means nothing to you. That LY HAS sought out the control and uses it, is just the same as western countries NOT seeking such control and not using it.
An Islam-apologist, you are doing it great.
Re: (Score:2)
"An Islam-apologist, you are doing it great."
Australia's government wants to impose mandatory internet filtering. Is it because their government is rife with Muslims?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, absolutely. But I just refuse to join in with the pants-wetting xenophobes.
I frankly don't care if some country is imposing the horrific barbarity of Victorian standards of modesty for pictures, in a minor way, via control of their domain.
I'll save my outrage for things that actually merit it, and which are actually specific to Islam. Not a minor, harmless anachronism.
WTF? (Score:4, Interesting)
Wait, why the hell are people registering domains in Libya to shorten URLs?
They don't exactly have a history as a nice place [wikipedia.org] and they have been suspected in supporting terrorism.
WTF is Twitter doing running stuff through a domain registered in friggin' Libya?? Why not just run a couple through Iran or Myanmar while we're at it?
Re: (Score:2)
We have to earn their trust so we can get the plutonium and hope they don't find out what we gave them back in return was a bunch of pinball machine parts.
Re: (Score:2)
Because bit.[TLD] was already taken for every value of TLD where TLD=="nice place"?
Re: (Score:2)
So, register bich.us or something. ;-)
Re:don't let this one get away! (Score:4, Funny)
That's damned funny. Though, some of the suggestions around "Bite.me" the parking page suggests are a little disturbing (AnimalBite.me).
Of course, I had to look [wikipedia.org] to see what TLD .me was, and found this humorous bit:
I'm sure someone thought long and hard to come up with that bit of wit. :-P
SSDD (Score:5, Informative)
This type stuff has been going on for years. It is nothing new! I used to own xg.nu, on it I ran a large anon server averaging 3.5 million unique hits a month and 500,000 messages a day. .nu domain notified me that Anonymity was not permitted and took the domain back. Point is, this happens a lot more than it is reported. There is no real recourse for this, you live, learn, and move on.
The island state of Niue Who owns the
Re:SSDD (Score:5, Interesting)
This type stuff has been going on for years. It is nothing new! I used to own xg.nu, on it I ran a large anon server averaging 3.5 million unique hits a month and 500,000 messages a day. The island state of Niue Who owns the .nu domain notified me that Anonymity was not permitted and took the domain back. Point is, this happens a lot more than it is reported. There is no real recourse for this, you live, learn, and move on.
I knew the guy who helped establish and run the .nu domain. He's done a lot for the people of that island, and in so doing, he's had to respect the cultural predilections of his fellow islanders, who have been strongly influenced by evangelical Christian beliefs in recent years.
'Nu' means 'nude' in French and 'now' in Swedish. Guess which country the registrar focused on? Guess which one it had to defend against?
Revenues from the domain registrations went to provide free wireless Internet access to the entire island, and since then, the island has purchased XO laptops for every single school child, making them the first country to achieve 100% distribution (albeit for only 500 kids).
But over the years, the government has tried to get its hands on the profits, leading to successive disputes. If the .nu registrar didn't keep a squeaky clean reputation for that ccTLD, he would have been pilloried for his failure. I find it hard to imagine how arguments about Free Speech rights would have improved this particular situation.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet another reason religion is bad for government (Score:3)
It troubles me to no end the lengths people will go today in the name of religion. It's actually becoming common place for someone to have an extreme view and use the blanket of religion to protect them.
I have no problem with someone having beliefs, I too have them, but I base them off common sense, not because some book says I should do things. Questioning the institution is essential for growth. The middle east seems stuck in eternal infancy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It troubles me to no end the lengths people will go today in the name of religion. It's actually becoming common place for someone to have an extreme view and use the blanket of religion to protect them.
It was always this way. Hell, arguably the USA was founded by a bunch of people who wanted to practise religion in their own way and didn't see how it was the governments' business.
If you think people will go to extreme lengths today..... emigrating on a sail boat two hundred and fifty years ago was no picnic. A journey that took months, a bunk not much longer (and rather narrower) than the desk I'm sitting at now, any disease had nowhere to go but infect everyone on board. And the food had to be stuff th
I can't really bother to care about this (Score:2)
"I know! I'll run off and register up.kp for my new service! Surely Kim Jong-* won't mind if I toss out some links to starvation in the People's Democratic Republic of Nutjobs!"
Seriously? It seemed like a good idea to set up a business in the gTLD a country widely known for religious extremity, full well knowing that your business would never be physically tolerated, and that it can be shut down by clicking a checkbox without even having to call in police and bulldozers?
And perhaps I'd care more if this was
One of the dangers of URL shorteners (Score:2, Insightful)
Classic example of why URL shorteners should be considered harmful. Twitter is mostly to blame, I've had to shorten URLs for tweets before, but Twitter could employ better tactics than using the full url as the anchor text too.
sfw? Libya isn't killing any1 to make their point (Score:3, Insightful)
D'oh (goatse alert) (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But, since when does Qaddafi give a crap about Sharia?
Exactly. Libya is not like Saudi Arabia where women have to sit in the back seat, etc. Although the Libyan judicial system is supposedly based on Sharia law, it is observably closer to British/American systems. Most results involve prison terms or other modern punishments.
My observation: like many other things in Libya, perception is more important than reality. The government wants to appear to be consistent with Sharia law but doesn't want Sharia to permeate Libyan society.
You can still be buddies w