Posts: 42
Threads: 1
Joined: Nov 2006
Yes it is censorship, but not int he way you are meaning it. For it to be a legal issue of censorship, that would require government involvment. If I had a store and chose not to sell alcohol or porno mags, I would be censoring it but, odng nothign illegal, nothign worng, just running my buskness as I see fit. Once again, like it or not, it is they business and they can run it as they please as long as it is legal. They don't seem to have don't anything illegal. I understand your point of view, though. Did those of you who had domains removed ever appeal the decision?
Posts: 77
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2006
I'm going to have to side with hokeshel on this one. In the end, it's up to them who they do business with.
Posts: 943
Threads: 138
Joined: Jun 2006
hokeshel Wrote:Yes it is censorship, but not int he way you are meaning it. For it to be a legal issue of censorship, that would require government involvment. If I had a store and chose not to sell alcohol or porno mags, I would be censoring it but, odng nothign illegal, nothign worng, just running my buskness as I see fit. Once again, like it or not, it is they business and they can run it as they please as long as it is legal. They don't seem to have don't anything illegal. I understand your point of view, though. Did those of you who had domains removed ever appeal the decision?
I can see what you mean... BUT take this example: if you were one of the main providers of alcohol, and had thousands of customers who would buy alcohol from you.... and you just stopped selling alcohol because you consider it to not be 'family friendly', then you are not supplying the social need for alcohol.
I'm not talking about legal need, or business need.. I'm talking about social need.
My point it, it might not be LEGAL censorship, but it is SOCIAL censorship (considering Afternic's position). Companies should have at least some social responsibility.
What you are saying is essentially the same logic as: people shouldn't pay taxes if they don't want to, because it's their money. Well that's not the case, because each person has responsibility towards their society.
In my opinion (and that's my logic), afternic is not being responsible.
But anyway, everyone should feel free to sell gambling and adult domains here on Domain Social. 
Posts: 98
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2006
hokeshel Wrote:Yes it is censorship, but not int he way you are meaning it. For it to be a legal issue of censorship, that would require government involvment. If I had a store and chose not to sell alcohol or porno mags, I would be censoring it but, odng nothign illegal, nothign worng, just running my buskness as I see fit. Once again, like it or not, it is they business and they can run it as they please as long as it is legal. They don't seem to have don't anything illegal. I understand your point of view, though. Did those of you who had domains removed ever appeal the decision?
Ok, but censorship isn't illegal. I mean, folks censor what their kids see on television all the time. Companies censor the websites their employees visit. I don't think anybody is saying these folks don't have a right to censor.
If a company doesn't want to be associated with certain types of sites, fine. But if it has been, it needs to disassociate itself in an honest and responsible way, being respectful of those who don't hold its views, especially if they've been its loyal customers. Business owners don't get to determine what's morally right for anybody except themselves.
Posts: 54
Threads: 2
Joined: Aug 2006
12-06-2006, 12:10 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-06-2006, 12:14 PM by goodkarmaco.)
Thats a funny picture with Roger Collins, the then President of Afternic.
He is seen after a Traffic convention for the domain industry playing poker on a private yacht. Playing poker not for fun, but gambling for money. Have you seen the photo of him raking in a big pile of money?.
Funny if you have a sick mind.
Posts: 77
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2006
Okay, so I guess what some of you are saying is that it wasn't necessarily the decision, but rather how the company went about it. I can see how that might anger some people.
Posts: 98
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2006
LyricB Wrote:Okay, so I guess what some of you are saying is that it wasn't necessarily the decision, but rather how the company went about it. I can see how that might anger some people.
Yes and no. How they went about it was bad. I'm also not in favor of the decision, per se. I'm not saying they couldn't make that decision, just that it needs to be on their own behalf, not anyone else's. Again, people get to make their own moral decisions. A business owner can decide not to sell Playboy or the Catholic Courier if it bothers her, it's all the same to me. It's when she claims to be making that decision to "protect" other people that I get uncomfortable.
Posts: 54
Threads: 2
Joined: Aug 2006
Exactly,
Its not that any business does not have the right to make certain decisions.
Afternic did not take into account that its members had a investment in their business. Afterall for years and years they promoted the names, encouraged us to buy and park such names in their website. Plus the discuss names forum encouraged talking about poker and sex names as they were talked about daily.
The staff even remarked on such names.
So here is the point. If you owned Afternic and your members paid a fee to list certain names for a one year period and every day those types of names were for sale and sold you have a obligation to those paying members to not pull the rug from under them. Your obligation is to honor your members rights to certain policies.
I paid for my membership for a year. If my landlord did not honor my years price and jacked it up or changed my contract without giving me ( one years) notice, I would sue them.
All Afternic had to do was tell its members in one year time we will not accept certain names.
To announce in one simple email they are not acceptable and to not take into account the hard work and the finacial loss of its members only for the sole purpose of catering to a new owners request is a slap in the face to all its members. If you are for the censorship or not the way it was done is inexcusable.
Management did not respond at all to all the confusion and questions asked, simply deciding to ignore us.
Then to top off the bad business decision they slam all decent domainers who own such names by saying the names are not ones for setting high standards for the domain industry. Add to that the declaration made in the websites homepage that owning those types of names are promoting hate and violence is bigotry. So if you owned girlsforum or boys today name and it was pulled, you are being labeled by a industry leader as having names that promote hate and violence. Even if you intend the names to be used for a blog or whatever. Shame on Afternic for such stupid decisions.
Afternic made millions selling such names, then all of a sudden those names are not good enough for the domain industry.
The very worst part of this clean out is they took it upon themselves to declare " those types of names promote hate and violence".
Well I take great issue with that and many folks who are active in the gay lesbian movements are taking issue with that statement too. Hopefully lawsuits will be filed. Today someone posted in Afternic " why is my phonevirus name" I just listed in Afternic being pulled? The answer from their management is virus can be seen as attacking the phone business, lol.. that place is looney and it is not getting any better.
So, yes support freedom of speech and that includes your right not to list certain names if you want. Do not support companies that treat their customers who have brought them much success so shabbily. That is what is making so many people mad.
If you do not agree that they have treated their customers (domainers shabbily) then you will allow any other company to see Afternic got away with it and they might just do that to you too.
Stand up for domainers rights. The right to be treated with proper business ethics.
Before you say.. " well I am glad someplace decides to delist controversial names", think about this. Does that company promote freedom of speech by their actions.
When a company says any name that has a gambling term or an adult term in it we do not think it is a good image for the domain industry, they are on a crusade to walk over people to acheive their goals. That goal was to satisfy the new buyers request and not to satisfy its loyal members.
The previous owner of Afternic ( Roger Collins) it seems to me is hypocritical in that only six weeks before the announcement that gambling domains are not the standard for the domain industry was seen gambling for money on a private yacht at a domainers traffic convention.
He is seen in the photo with his hands raking in a big pile of money he won in that card game. Probably some of that money was earned by some domainer selling a name or from parking revenue earned that is now banned at Afternic.
That says it all.
Posts: 72
Threads: 3
Joined: Sep 2006
I think it depends on what "pulled" *means* here. If they refuse to host it, but the purchaser STILL OWNS their domain name, they can certainly put it up somewhere else within 24-48 hours without much difficulty.
If they retain ownership themselves and refuse to allow people access to their own domains, then that is a whole different issue.
Posts: 54
Threads: 2
Joined: Aug 2006
Without much difficulty? I know a guy who has 6,700 domain names. It certainly is difficult time wise to upload some names, if it is hundreds or thousands of names, its is a big job.
Like I said it is perfectly fine to define your business.
But they owe the members who have made them a success. Those members sold such names in Afternic for years and they had no idea Afternic would "pull" the rug out from under them. Why would they, names like poker, porn names, and every type of name was sold daily by Afternic.
Then in one swift email came the "we think these types of names are promoting hate and violence". So the announcement to delete the names came with NO WARNING.
A few weeks before this email, The President of Afternic is gambling at a poker table with other industry leaders.
To sell names members were required to pay a one year membership. Afternic to be a decent partner, should consider its loyal customers. To not tell them they have one year from the announcement to pull certain names is poor customer service.
|
