Domains you wouldn't reg on principle

[DDC_Cyn]

Every day, when I scan through the lists of domains people are buying and selling, I notice some that I feel funny about on principle.

For example, names of killers, or even domains with the words kill, or murder in them. A month or so ago, there was a flurry of activity around the name of that man who had his family locked up in the basement. I don't know, feels like bad karma to me, even if the sites do pull in traffic.

Do these kinds of names bother you, or is it about giving the people what they want?

 

[Michael]

I personally think it is wrong to profit from someone else's misfortune. Call it ethics, call it karma, call it whatever you want... it still bugs me.

 

[Rob J]

I don't care to hear about other peoples morals, one example is a few months ago someone posted the domain pedophiles.com (or something like that). A bunch of people got all high and mighty about the domain name and how he should have never registered it on principle. Well good for you and your morals, now shut up about them. There's absolutely NO REASON pedophiles.com has to be a pro-pedophile site.

 

[Spade]

Recently I wrote a letter to Network Solutions about their sale of Sand*****r.com. I felt NSI should have taken the higher road when that sale occurred. Donating their profits from it to a tolerance organization.

Just my opinion.

 

[Michael]

I don't care to hear about other peoples morals, one example is a few months ago someone posted the domain pedophiles.com (or something like that). A bunch of people got all high and mighty about the domain name and how he should have never registered it on principle. Well good for you and your morals, now shut up about them. There's absolutely NO REASON pedophiles.com has to be a pro-pedophile site.

First of all, you need to relax a bit, especially with the "shut up" comments. This is a forum and everyone is free to express their views.

Second of all, your example is not pertinent exactly because of what you said, it could be used for good in a roundabout way.

But how could registering the name of murder victim and setting up a parking page benefit anyone?

Recently I wrote a letter to Network Solutions about their sale of Sand*****r.com. I felt NSI should have taken the higher road when that sale occurred. Donating their profits from it to a tolerance organization.

Just my opinion.

Kudos to you for being proactive about it.

 

[.jd.]

Regardless. Most of the names will pull in traffic thus creating profit for some one. Morals,obligations as some might say etc.. It doesn't matter. People profit off of everything.

For profit, nothing matters. Done

 

[IAmAllanShore]

Depends on the nature of the misfortune... Delta going bankrupt was a huge misfortune for many, but that would be a mighty different ethical standard than the name of a child molester, etc.

-Allan

 

[MaguirePhD]

NaziHQ.de

Regged NaziHQ.de so it would not fall into the hands of someone who would use it for the wrong purpose. Had two uncles who were POW's under the Nazi regime.

Now, I will give it to dekok.de an organization that retires these domains. I don't think this name should have even been available.

Similarly, I regged NJSP.mobi (New Jersey State Police), my first department, so that no one would take it and exploit it. Will never profit from it.

As soon as they realize the administration division was asleep at the switch and should have registered it, I will just transfer it to them.


This post is not to tout me at all but to point out that we all have n obligation to secure domain names that could be used with bad intent.

Doc

 

[DDC_Cyn]

I'm not saying we should ban names or censor anything people want to put on them. As you said, an anti-site could make use of a name that is troublesome to most. I also don't object to sites that have information about serial killers.

I guess it goes to intent - just like when someone regs a trademarked or actor's name for the purpose of extortion.

What I'm more curious about is where people draw the line. Is the word Murder or killer, in a domain enough to turn you off? What about celebs that get in trouble. Tatum O'Neal just got busted - how many people are looking for domain names that suit that news story as we speak?

 

[Rob J]

First of all, you need to relax a bit, especially with the "shut up" comments. This is a forum and everyone is free to express their views.

I didn't tell anyone specifically to shut up, so you need to relax a bit. And even if I did, as you said yourself everyone is free to express their views.

Second of all, your example is not pertinent exactly because of what you said, it could be used for good in a roundabout way.

But how could registering the name of murder victim and setting up a parking page benefit anyone?

Well, it depends on how high profile it is I guess. I'm sure LaciPeterson.com or NicoleSimpson.com benefitted someone. Maybe it's sleazy, but this is a pretty sleazy business. I have a hard time believing anyone here wouldn't have jumped to reg those names, morals or not.

edit: i'll also point out that even those aren't necessarily regged in bad faith. For all we know the LaciPeterson.com domain was donated to them, NicoleSimpson.com is parked and i'd guess it gets a good deal of type-ins, but at least it's not a pro-OJ site glamorizing the murders.

Anyways, to answer the original question in this thread, there isn't any name that I wouldn't register on principle. In fact, i'd argue that everyone should reg names that they find offensive or immoral, simply to keep them out of the hands of the people who would do bad things with them. I'm sure there are some hate groups that would love the domain *****rs.com , so we can be thankful at least that it's parked rather than developed as a hate site.

 

[Michael]

I didn't tell anyone specifically to shut up, so you need to relax a bit. And even if I did, as you said yourself everyone is free to express their views.



Well, it depends on how high profile it is I guess. I'm sure LaciPeterson.com or NicoleSimpson.com benefitted someone. Maybe it's sleazy, but this is a pretty sleazy business. I have a hard time believing anyone here wouldn't have jumped to reg those names, morals or not.

edit: i'll also point out that even those aren't necessarily regged in bad faith. For all we know the LaciPeterson.com domain was donated to them, NicoleSimpson.com is parked and i'd guess it gets a good deal of type-ins, but at least it's not a pro-OJ site glamorizing the murders.

Anyways, to answer the original question in this thread, there isn't any name that I wouldn't register on principle. In fact, i'd argue that everyone should reg names that they find offensive or immoral, simply to keep them out of the hands of the people who would do bad things with them. I'm sure there are some hate groups that would love the domain *****rs.com , so we can be thankful at least that it's parked rather than developed as a hate site.

Everyone is free to express their views... politely. This is sometimes seen as a sleazy business because so many people don't have a line that they aren't willing to cross to make a buck, but that doesn't excuse it.

Regardless. Most of the names will pull in traffic thus creating profit for some one. Morals,obligations as some might say etc.. It doesn't matter. People profit off of everything.

For profit, nothing matters. Done

People profit off of drugs and prostitution, I guess that makes it ok to slang crack and pimp hos. Heck, why stop there when you can sell children into slavery and traffic humans? A buck is a buck, right?

To answer the other part of the question, I wouldn't have a problem buying a name with kill, murder, etc. in it, but I just couldn't bring myself to register the name of a murder victim or missing/abused child because I could just imagine how that would make the victim's family feel.

 

[GF]

I can see certain ethics involved with profiting off someone else's misfortune. If I were to set up a website named "RonaldGoldman.com," parked it and received ad revenue I'd feel like I was taking blood money by pocketing it.

Additionally, I can't register a name if I believe it represents something that is immoral (abortion, ethnic cleansing, murder, child abuse, etc.)

Depends on the nature of the misfortune... Delta going bankrupt was a huge misfortune for many, but that would be a mighty different ethical standard than the name of a child molester, etc.

-Allan

Allan hit it right on the head.

 

[.jd.]

I can see certain ethics involved with profiting off someone else's misfortune. If I were to set up a website named "RonaldGoldman.com," parked it and received ad revenue I'd feel like I was taking blood money by pocketing it.

Additionally, I can't register a name if I believe it represents something that is immoral (abortion, ethnic cleansing, murder, child abuse, etc.)



Allan hit it right on the head.

Thats where it plays in. Some people would say that abortion is not wrong at all. In some countries having a slave is still deemed "ok".

 

[netfleet]

I've come across typos for charities and NFP's which I know from various tests would receive heaps of traffic. So, instead of regging them, I email the relevant organisation to let them know it should be registered as they are losing traffic & potential supporters.

Unfortunately usually my emails are ignored & the typo left unregged. I guess some people don't really understand....

 

[kemjika11]

I agree with .jd. Ethics aand business are related, but they are different things. Domainers get all "ethical" when you have a name that is controversial to say the least. If its legal, then why can't they reg those types of names? If its legal, you are entitled to do it if you choose to. Its clouded objectivity in my eyes. I really dislike it. This is capitalism, and no matter whats happening, someone is benefitting and profiting from it. As long as the name is not OVERLY disgusting, then i really won't judge it specially(lets say in the appraisal section of NP).

 

[firefly]

If sounds like it's encouraging or making light of rape, child molestation, Violence against women, then I find it completely immoral and totally reprehensible for anyone to make profit from it.

 

[weblord]

about drinking, smoking, sex, those are the things we don't do as christians.

 

[GF]

Thats where it plays in. Some people would say that abortion is not wrong at all. In some countries having a slave is still deemed "ok".

Right. If someone else can sleep at night knowing that they are profiting from abortion, that's their prerogative. If someone else deems slavery as OK, same with them. They are (and should be!) free to do so. If they want to profit off of these things, they live with that on their conscience.

about drinking, smoking, sex, those are the things we don't do as christians.

Ehh, sorry - I do all of the above, and I'm a proud Christian.

Drinking - absolutely - I love scotch
Smoking - I have a great collection of cigars
Sex - I try every night

I go to church every Sunday, and love it. :kickass:

 

[Michael]

I agree with .jd. Ethics aand business are related, but they are different things. Domainers get all "ethical" when you have a name that is controversial to say the least. If its legal, then why can't they reg those types of names? If its legal, you are entitled to do it if you choose to. Its clouded objectivity in my eyes. I really dislike it. This is capitalism, and no matter whats happening, someone is benefitting and profiting from it. As long as the name is not OVERLY disgusting, then i really won't judge it specially(lets say in the appraisal section of NP).

There are a lot of things that are legal but completely immoral. I don't think it is wise to let the law guide your morals though. There is a vast difference between something you should be "allowed" to do and something that you "should" do. It is legal to be an adulterer, but does that make it right? It is legal to register domains of murder victims, but does that make it right?

Obviously everyone has their own set of morals and is entitled to their beliefs, just saying where I stand.

 

[kemjika11]

There are a lot of things that are legal but completely immoral. I don't think it is wise to let the law guide your morals though. There is a vast difference between something you should be "allowed" to do and something that you "should" do. It is legal to be an adulterer, but does that make it right? It is legal to register domains of murder victims, but does that make it right?

Obviously everyone has their own set of morals and is entitled to their beliefs, just saying where I stand.

GOod point. I actually agree with you, and thats why i said "...as long as its not OVERLY disgusting".