Wikipedia is leaving Go Daddy because of SOPA

Wikipedia is leaving Go Daddy because of SOPA

Summary: Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales stayed true to his word and transferred the popular online encyclopedia's domain registry from Go Daddy to MarkMonitor because Go Daddy had supported SOPA.

SHARE:

Wikipedia says no to Go Daddy

Wikipedia says no to Go Daddy

Go Daddy, the well-known Internet registry, made a business blunder. The company supported the controversal Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). Many people noticed, including Jimmy Wales, founder and head of Wikipedia, and were not happy. Wales publicly said he was going to pull Wikipedia's domains, some of the most popular sites on the Web away from GoDaddy. Whoops.

Go Daddy's executives, who aren't fools, immediately started to back away from SOPA. But, even as Go Daddy CEO Warren Adelman put his company in full reverse, he kept the door open to SOPA-like laws. Adelman wrote, "Go Daddy opposes SOPA because the legislation has not fulfilled its basic requirement to build a consensus among stake-holders in the technology and Internet communities."

That loop hole of future potential laws appears to have been enough for Wales to go ahead and pull the trigger on Wikipedia's Go Daddy registration. Wikipedia's parent company, Wikimedia, announced on March 9th that they had completed their transfer of Wikipedia sites from GoDaddy.

In this blog posting, Wikimedia legal counsel Michelle Paulson explained, "After months of deliberation and a complicated transfer, the Wikimedia Foundation domain portfolio has been successfully transferred from GoDaddy to MarkMonitor [a U.S.-based domain registry and trademark ]. The portfolio transfer was formally completed on Friday, March 9th, 2012. The transfers were done seamlessly and our sites did not experience any interruption of service or other issues during the procedure."

She went on, "As the provider of the 5th most visited web properties in the world, the Foundation cares deeply about who handles our domain names. We had been deliberating a move from GoDaddy for some time - our legal department felt the company was not the best fit for our domain needs - and we began actively seeking other domain management providers in December 2011. Go Daddy's initial support of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), the controversial anti-piracy legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives, reaffirmed our decision to end the relationship."

In short, when Go Daddy finally pulled away from SOPA it was already too little, too late. Go Daddy, which has been no stranger to controversy may want to think twice before it takes a controversial stand again. Its customers are watching.

Related Stories:

Next-gen consumers: Bringing companies to their knees

Go Daddy really and truly opposes SOPA now

Go Daddy's SOPA Entanglement

GoDaddy still violates ICANN policy--and still sleazy

Topics: Enterprise Software, Collaboration, Piracy, Security

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

20 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Good.

    I don't use GoDaddy because they use Microsoft servers for their e-commerce site. Don't trust any data to go across Windows/IIS. So that means no GoDaddy for me.
    itguy10
    • Now c'mon

      This comment is lame... C'mon, I dont' mind about m$ bashing when it's true... But this one is a nonsense.
      gbouchard99@...
      • That is all that itguy10 says

        So I can understand why he does not work in Information Technology.

        He spouts lies. Even his name is a lie.
        :|
        Tim Cook
      • Talk about pots and kettles!

        @William Farrel, the Spock Impersonator
        [quote]Even his name is a lie.[/quote]
        And your name [b]isn't[/b]? You are in [i]no[/i] position to throw stones.
        Zogg
      • Still clinging to your inability to comprehend what you have read, Zogg?

        as was pointed out, if you go back and read the entire blog you are referencing you will notice what had transpired.

        Respondant 1 made a comment.

        I replied with "Reply A"
        Mr. Farrel replied with "Reply B"

        Responent A pointed out how foolish I was to offer up "Reply B"

        All I did was point out that I did not make "Reply B", that I had made "Reply A", and therefor should not have been so hardly criticized by Repondant 1.

        Use logic, and you will see your mistake: Why would I claim to have never said something, when the proof of those words where just a few posts above?

        As you can see, when you read out of context, you arrive at inaccurate conclusions.
        :|
        Tim Cook
      • Whatever you say, General Zod!

        or would that be "General Zogg"? ;)
        William Farrel
      • Then let's analyse these posts, except with links this time.

        This is the original post from "someone" impersonating Spock:
        [quote]"I believe the term would be dumping[/quote]
        (zdnet)/tb/1-113814-2303504

        This post generates a reply, clearly asking the "Spock":
        [quote]Where was your outrage then?[/quote]
        (zdnet)/tb/1-113814-2303559

        And then suddenly there is a reply from "William Farrel", saying (my emphasis):
        [quote]And also, where did [b]I[/b] express "outrage"?

        [b]I[/b] believe all [b]I[/b] did was mention why Apple could not do that.

        You must not let your overly emotional attachment to Apple's products cloud what you see.[/quote]
        (zdnet)/tb/1-113814-2303703

        And this message was signed off with your typical emoticon signature :|. Yes, the message does start "@Mister Spock", but that could easily because it is a reply to the original post about "dumping", which was indeed posted from the "Spock" account. (The previous comment software being rather poor, etc.)

        So, the question becomes "Why would 'William Farrel' refer to something said by 'Mr Spock" [i]in the first person[/i]? The quip about an "overly emotional attachment to Apple's products", followed by the :| also raises an eyebrow...

        By all means, present an alternative explanation...
        Zogg
      • BTW, do feel free to offer up links to those comments you mentioned.

        It would be constructive for me to compare your version of events with the original texts, because I'm not able to identify the comment that you are referring to here:

        [quote]All I did was point out that I did not make "Reply B", that I had made "Reply A", and therefor should not have been so hardly criticized by Repondant 1.[/quote]
        Zogg
        • Gentlemen.... Gentlemen...

          Please! This hilarity serves no purpose other than making people laugh (which is always good)....

          Besides, we all know literacy and the 'net don't mix...

          I think the main issue we're facing here (aside from wondering what's for lunch--bacon, but what to garnish it with?) is that large and powerful groups (such as FB, Wikimedia, and even CBS -okay so no one watches them-) have their hands in one of the most vague legislative documents (and it's bastard love child CISPA) that allows for unbridled censorship in the US, as well as criminalization of average citizens with little or no burden of proof responsibilities for law enforcement.

          What I want to know is why? What are these groups getting from this move? Surely a company like Wikimedia would ultimately suffer. Wikimedia in particular relies on the 1st Amendment to bring articles and information that could easily be censored or restricted due to content. They rely on user-based cooperation, something that can be withdrawn as users tell them to stick it up their Cookie Crisp for betraying the Constitution. Does this seem like a sound business move to any of you?

          Here is a list of companies that support SOPA. There are companies involved that have no concern or reason to be concerned about the freedom of speech (or lack thereof), and yet they funneled large amounts of money to promote Lamar Smith's very questionable bill.

          They have to be getting something. No one just throws money at politicians without getting something.

          Take a look at this list of supporters, it made no sense last year, it makes no sense now. What is really going on behind this (and similar) bills? http://theoriesofconspiracy.com/2011/11/list-of-major-companies-supporting-sopa.htm
          Rilriia
          • Reviewing these comments in 2013 has proved "fascinating"!

            Firstly, it appears that the person who used to call himself "Mister Spock" has changed his handle to "Tim Cook".
            Secondly, the ZDNet website always renders an account's *current* handle.
            Thirdly, the person calling himself "William Farrel" must have created himself a new account because the handle in use in 2013 is now "William.Farrel".

            I'll keep my eyes open for new posts from "Tim Cook", now that I know the account's posting history...
            Zogg
  • Excellent!

    Maybe more customers will leave this spam-tastic hellhole, and their super-annoying Super Bowl commercials will be prevented from polluting the public airwaves.
    thetwonkey
  • Good for Wikipedia!

    I transferred my hosting from GoDaddy shortly after their stance on SOPA became public knowledge - up until that point I was a loyal GoDaddy customer and had no issues with their service - and I still have to admit the GoDaddy girls are hot. But I will not deal with a company that is going to be a sell out to the RIAA and MPAA to run roughshod over our rights. I find it amusing that they backpedaled when people began to abandon ship.
    athynz
    • Yup too late

      Good for you. I'm pulling clients as I write this.

      Even if Godaddy reversed their position, i cannot support a company that actually had people sit around a boardroom table and think the sopa laws were a good idea.

      They literally sat around a table and thought. wow, inconveniencing our clients and disrupting a multi-trillion dollar industry for one worth a few billion is a good idea.
      Merrr
    • I pulled my business from GoDaddy because of the ads

      I really didn't want that kind of image associated with me or anything I do. I might do something for kids or women. The ads are inappropriate for children and offensive to a lot of women.
      grant@...
  • wtf

    Thanks for the heads up. I only have about a dozen clients using godaddy certificate and hosting services but I'll back them out.

    Anyone know a good low cost alternative for certs?
    Merrr
  • At least Danica Patrick is sticking by GoDaddy

    ;)
    William Farrel
  • I actually disagree with this

    I didn't care much for GoDaddy's position on SOPA, but they were within their rights to express it (I'm more annoyed at them for chickening out). Boycotting businesses because of the political positions of management sets a very bad precedent in that it gives permission for all others to do the same thing.

    We need more open discussion of the issues of the day, not less. Efforts to punish people for disagreeing with one work against that.
    John L. Ries
  • As usual, Go Daddy probably doesn't care

    losing a half dozen accounts that pay a pittence won't break Go Daddy. Probably won't even be noticed.

    They've got a marketing formula, minor damage control as most people don't care about Wiki moving, just about getting the cert for not much $$

    Besides, Costco is pushing Go Daddy now, so they'll more than make up for any small losses through the big box stores
    Cynical99
  • Moving away from GoDaddy after my domain names got stolen!

    If you are hosting your domain names with GoDaddy, then you MUST secure them.

    I want everyone to know that two of valuable domain names was stolen of my GoDaddy account, someone hacked my account and just transfer them to another domain registrar, and GoDaddy didn't help that much to resolve this.

    So don't get involved in a painful situation and secure your business domain names now, or better choice would be move from GoDaddy for good.
    Hesham Zebida
  • Bigprofitbuzz provides the Best Share Market Commodity Investment Trading T

    BigProfitbuzz is an Indian stock market advisory firm. BigProfitbuzz proven month after month that trading and investing in stock market can be profitable whether market is bull or bear. As said last time we made a buy position in NIFTY around 6100-6150 we booked the profit around 6400. All our paid clients made a very good profit. Now for the comingMCX, COMMODITY TIPS week we suggest all the traders to make a sell position in NIFTY around 6450-6500 with stoploss of 6600 for the target 6250-6100. We know these levels are high but we are very much sure that this is the very safe level to trade. So wait for the level to take your position in the market. Traders can also make sell position in NIFTY 50 stocks according to the level of NIFTY. If want good calls in the market then fill our trial form & get them. We believe in Low risk for sufficient profit.
    Regards
    BIGPROFITBUZZ TEAM
    Bigprofitbuzz