logoalt Hacker News

Never buy a .online domain

632 pointsby ssiddharthtoday at 1:31 PM390 commentsview on HN

Comments

metalliqaztoday at 4:27 PM

Top of HN. Well, I guess you could say that Radix's strategy to give away domains backfired spectacularly.

cmsp12today at 2:23 PM

honestly all of these weird tld are expensive in the long term i dont see the point of getting them

elAhmotoday at 2:43 PM

Another case of Google extorting users and showing mafia-like behaviour.

mystralinetoday at 1:55 PM

So, how is this not libel by Google? The claim was that you were running an "unsafe site". Its their job to prove that, and not just "black box says so".

And you have system and reputational damages.

Go for small claims suit, $5000. It'll cost more than that for their attorney to go to your jurisdiction.

show 3 replies
tucnaktoday at 1:54 PM

The .com purist advice is sound but you're not getting four-letter domain names that way, and in some ccTLD zones you can still.

I was price-gouged out of owning a single, rare .icu domain when renewal fee for it went from 20 usd to 220 usd overnight, just for this one domain... I'm pretty sure it's not Gandi, but the TLD opetator, because other .icu domains I've had were fine. I decided to eventually abandon them all anyway. Moved away from Gandi later when they started doing gouging of their own, too.

What is HN's opinion on Dynadot?

show 1 reply
squeeferstoday at 4:08 PM

sorry but you cant have a domain if google ban it? how does this work?

icasetoday at 3:04 PM

“never buy a non-.(com|net|org) domain”

ftfy

show 1 reply
socotoday at 1:50 PM

Enshittification at its peak (or is it at its peak already?)

show 1 reply
wangzhongwangtoday at 5:11 PM

[dead]

wordsnakingtoday at 4:17 PM

[dead]

twapitoday at 2:27 PM

OP shouldn't blame .online registry operator Radix.

show 2 replies
nickwebtoday at 1:55 PM

Hot Take: the proactive action of the registrar here is probably more beneficial than the number of false positives captured. If the registrar is aware that Google is hot on blocking potentially harmful sites, it's right that they take action expeditiously.

The bigger problem is the unbanning - for which there should be a better system, probably that should take the form of the registrar having a short grace period to aid in the Google stuff (DNS verification etc.) with additional checks by the registrar to make sure it's not being used for spam/malicious content.

The other point being why was Google banning you so quickly? This is the opaque part. Was the site reported? Was there some URL hijinks? That's the thing you'll probably never find out.

show 3 replies