Dynadot

analysis Are You Ready For An Explosion In Domain Sales?

Spaceship Spaceship
Watch

Ategy

Arif M, NameCult.com TheDomainSocial.comTop Member
Impact
17,389
Originally posted at: http://namecult.com/are-you-ready-for-an-explosion-in-domain-sales/


Donald Trump's recent anger at Twitter, and the talk of his government potentially closing various social media companies down, would have a monumental ripple effect on the domain industry.

What most of the world missed, hidden in the financial crash of 2008, was that it wasn't just regular businesses that closed because of that crisis. Right around the same time is when Facebook took off at a viral rate the world had never seen before. However, in doing so, it killed thousands upon thousands of smaller niche communities as eyeballs jumped to Facebook where you essentially could keep in touch and keep tabs on anyone and everyone you knew online.

The end result was a death to a lot of nice fun websites run by individuals or small groups. As those websites died over the following couple of years, all those domains were dropped.

While I don't think it's likely it will ever come to Twitter and Facebook closing their doors, given the erratic nature of the current U.S. administration, the probability is not absolute zero. That being said, there's a slightly higher, yet still slim chance that there could be some form of changes coming on the horizon.

Ironically enough, the social media giants like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube (Google) are coming to a crossroads where we as a society need to figure out where to draw the line in terms of how responsible they are for the actual content they "Publish". I deliberately put "Publish" in quotes, because their argument to relinquish responsibility of the content found on their networks, is that they are not the publishers, but that in fact it is their users who are the publishers.

Ultimately whoever is decided to be the actual "publisher", there's the important fact that the platforms have a direct financial benefit from the content. So an argument could be made that they still have responsibility even if they didn't actually create the content. The final answer also need not be one or the other, but in fact, both users and the social platforms could shoulder various forms of responsibility.

In the end, that argument is a rather complex one with more nuances and consequences than most people realise. However, one thing should be clear to all ... which is that if there are closures or strong restriction that are imposed on the big social media platforms, it will be the domain industry that benefits in big way as more and more blogs, community websites and niche groups move to get their own websites where they have far greater control over their content.

It's actually something the online world should be considering regardless as to what is imposed on social media sites in the next months and years, but if the U.S. administration takes drastic action against them, then the positive effect on demand for domains could be extremely quick depending on the specifics.

To all you domain investors out there: Get ready ... Get set ... G...
 
23
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
The straw that broke the camel's back:
If one doesn't want to be tracked at all, one doesn't have to use internet at all.

I'm going to bow out of this conversation here. One has to acknowledge when they're talking into the abyss with no chance of sane discussion.
 
1
•••
They collect data but they provide essential services, FB service is not essential especially when you consider the overwhelming negativities of their platform. FB was used to manipulate people and even countries, the series of revolutions in Arabic countries known as Arabic spring were direct result of people manipulation through FB. Trump won the elections because of FB, which was not possible without a platform that is wide spread. If you want to herd people then you need first to gather them in one place, and the biggest place on earth for people gathering is FB. Google collects more data than FB, but at least Google is not a social media that can be used to manipulate the masses.
Your dislike of Facebook seems to coming from political perspective. I am refraining from any political discussion. I agree they are not essential and can be used for for bad intentions. But I don’t think that’s Mr. Zuckerberg’s fault. He made this platform for us to use and we can decide to use it in a good way or bad way. He also obtained Instagram etc. FB is crucial to many businesses ...people write reviews on FB and make groups....and Facebook marketplace....Mr.Zuckerberg is doing his best to combine many different Niches. He is a good guy. Moral guy and successful businessman. :)
 
1
•••
Your dislike of Facebook seems to coming from political perspective. I am refraining from any political discussion. I agree they are not essential and can be used for for bad intentions. But I don’t think that’s Mr. Zuckerberg’s fault. He made this platform for us to use and we can decide to use it in a good way or bad way. He also obtained Instagram etc. FB is crucial to many businesses ...people write reviews on FB and make groups....and Facebook marketplace....Mr.Zuckerberg is doing his best to combine many different Niches. He is a good guy. Moral guy and successful businessman. :)

They provided flawed system that allows anyone with big budget to manipulate people by exploiting their private data.. they created a monster that is now out of control.

If it is about business then stick to business advertising, why these social platforms dont ban or disallow political advertising? What stops them from doing that other than greed?
 
Last edited:
4
•••
They provided flawed system that allows anyone with big budget to manipulate people by exploiting their private data.. they created a monster that is now out of control.

If it is about business then stick to business advertising, why these social platforms dont ban or disallow political advertising? What stops them from doing that other than greed?
I can’t comment on the second part as it is pertaining to politics

The first part: well they are for profit business. Any media Abc Cnn or Fox News whatever all does the same thing...especially now they are public traded companies ....many investors will push the company to make more profits so their stock price will go higher....ultimately it comes down to us to make good judgements and to not believe everything is on web or TV....
 
1
•••
Here is another truth of Facebook:
WhatsApp Image 2020-06-03 at 2.49.05 PM.jpeg
 
2
•••
Your dislike of Facebook seems to coming from political perspective. I am refraining from any political discussion. I agree they are not essential and can be used for for bad intentions. But I don’t think that’s Mr. Zuckerberg’s fault. He made this platform for us to use and we can decide to use it in a good way or bad way. He also obtained Instagram etc. FB is crucial to many businesses ...people write reviews on FB and make groups....and Facebook marketplace....Mr.Zuckerberg is doing his best to combine many different Niches. He is a good guy. Moral guy and successful businessman. :)

A good guy will not compromise with morality and ethics. He has created a platform which he is not able to fully control or may be he is not willing to control.
 
2
•••
What must be remembered is, that facebook was never facebook, it was intended as a college/ gallery, and then it went further from there to public, where private data was eventually used, with advertising making money for the site.
 
3
•••
If it is about business then stick to business advertising, why these social platforms dont ban or disallow political advertising? What stops them from doing that other than greed?

This came out yesterday:

Facebook to ban state-controlled media from running ads on its network
June 4 (UPI) -- Facebook said Thursday that starting this summer it will no longer allow state-controlled media to run ads on its network out of 'an abundance of caution' against 2020 election interference.

Facebook starts labeling ‘state-controlled media’ pages
Facebook has begun labeling media outlets that are “wholly or partially under the editorial control of their government,” following an announcement of the policy in 2019. It will start labeling ads from these outlets later this year, as well as banning state-controlled media from advertising inside the US


This announcement clearly shows that FB are well aware about their flawed advertising system and the damage it is doing "globally". Although it is too late for this step but better late than never. The ban will only be applied to US advertising, they should also expand the ban to global advertising not only the US.
 
Last edited:
3
•••
This came out yesterday:

Facebook to ban state-controlled media from running ads on its network


Facebook starts labeling ‘state-controlled media’ pages



This announcement clearly shows that FB are well aware about their flawed advertising system and the damage it is doing "globally". Although it is too late for this step but better late than never. The ban will only be applied to US advertising, they should also expand the ban to global advertising not only the US.

What about those media houses, though they call themselves as privately owned, but in reality they act as mouth piece of the ruling government. For example most of the TV channels in India. Will Facebook ban them too?
 
0
•••
0
•••
“Social media gives more people a voice and provides a powerful tool for value creation and competitive differentiation.”

- Advanced Human Technologies, 2010
 
0
•••
What about those media houses, though they call themselves as privately owned, but in reality they act as mouth piece of the ruling government. For example most of the TV channels in India. Will Facebook ban them too?
Facebook or twitter is not privately owned...They are public traded companies. That's why they have multiple obligation and responsibility to people, investors, government, etc etc etc......Any decision may be liked by some but hated by the others. You can't satisfy all.
 
0
•••
Facebook or twitter is not privately owned...They are public traded companies. That's why they have multiple obligation and responsibility to people, investors, government, etc etc etc......Any decision may be liked by some but hated by the others. You can't satisfy all.

He was talking about FB recent ban on state controlled media. see my post above
 
2
•••
What about those media houses, though they call themselves as privately owned, but in reality they act as mouth piece of the ruling government. For example most of the TV channels in India. Will Facebook ban them too?

That's why I think the ban should not be based on state controlled media, but should be a ban on political advertising in general regardless of the owner.
 
Last edited:
2
•••
Back