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.
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
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Good.
Now c'mon
That is all that itguy10 says
He spouts lies. Even his name is a lie.
:|
Talk about pots and kettles!
[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.
Still clinging to your inability to comprehend what you have read, Zogg?
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.
:|
Whatever you say, General Zod!
Then let's analyse these posts, except with links this time.
[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...
BTW, do feel free to offer up links to those comments you mentioned.
[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]
Gentlemen.... Gentlemen...
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
Excellent!
Good for Wikipedia!
Yup too late
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.
I pulled my business from GoDaddy because of the ads
wtf
Anyone know a good low cost alternative for certs?
At least Danica Patrick is sticking by GoDaddy
I actually disagree with this
We need more open discussion of the issues of the day, not less. Efforts to punish people for disagreeing with one work against that.
As usual, Go Daddy probably doesn't care
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
Moving away from GoDaddy after my domain names got stolen!
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.