Nikhil Sonnad published an article on QZ.com that China will now demand users give their real identity while commenting anywhere online.
Certain services and websites have already had to require real identities from users, but now it seems it will be ubiquitous.
From the article:
“For users who have not given identifying information, platforms for and providers of online communities may not allow posting of any kind,” the announcement declares. It adds that, on these platforms, “no content may appear that is prohibited by national regulations.” (Those are my translations; I tried to keep intact the confusing language often used in these Chinese government announcements.) The CAC announcement also requires these platforms to “investigate thoroughly” any users they think may be using fake names and retain all user data for government inspection.
“investigate thoroughly” I bet, especially if it is about the Falun Gong.
The Chinese government can kiss my ass. So can any government which bans anonymous criticism, which is sometimes appropriate when non-anonymous criticism which isn’t libelous can result in persecution.
I’m just a nobody who posts anonymously behind a bear, often saying things that really need to be said for the sake of the larger cause. But only just a few guys have really been bent out of shape about that sometimes. So there’s no cake and eat it too, either anonymous posting has an important place or it doesn’t. But obviously it does. 😀
Tell us about long-tailed domains, especially the super duper valuable ones
And the sleeping giant (AKA .US)…tell us about that too
Thank you for trolling today, Striker, and it’s nice to see you’ve been paying attention and taking good notes. Your comments present a great new opportunity to post for the cause and those who actually care about the state of the industry and market. 😉
1. “Tell us about long-tailed…”: “long tailed” is a sadly derogatory and prejudicial term. So misguided…
Those who like to include “us” or “we” in remarks like that are suffering from the delusion that there is a great army of supporters standing with them, etc. Such an old way of going about it.
“especially the super duper valuable ones”: well, let’s see. There is the company listed on the London Stock Exchange whose wholly owned subsidiary contacted me to try to acquire two of my longest “super duper valuable” 4 word and 3 word .coms. They contacted me for the 4 word .com first, and let me say, it’s a doozer when ti comes to length, as in very very long. And there is the 6 word .com that had a real $6.7 million bid on it in 1999. And the way some people talk about the topic and pass the Kool-Aid around, even VacationRentals.com would be considered pretty long at $35 million.
2. “the sleeping giant (AKA .US)”: indeed, thanks for the opportunity to say it again. Yes, as I’ve said before, that is exactly what it is, even “comatose,” and it never had to be that way from the start, does not now, and may very well not stay that way. A whole discussion in itself.
And thank you for posting and sharing, and shall we take our next post please?
Oh wait – I was also going to mention that there is a nice long three word .com I could point out which is easily, soberly and realistically worth 9 figures, but I won’t. And it is. 😉
P.S. And the guy or party who has the 3 word .com worth 9 figures I’m quite confident would sell for much less and doesn’t even realize it’s worth that much, though everyone would still agree it’s still “super duper valuable.”
What’s the domain? Let the readers here be the judge on potential value of this monster of a name.
Well, unfortunately it would be too much against my own interests to say which one now. My apologies to the curious, which would certainly be me if it were the other way around. But the bottom line reality and plain truth is, when you are talking about the best of the best, then the best of the best domains that are three, four, five and even six words (or in rare cases a few more?) are genuinely worth fortunes big and small, especially to qualified end users, which means anywhere from $10k to tens of $millions or more. And one of the most important points is that the market is not a zero sum game, and that reality of worth in no way threatens or takes away from the value of the best short gems. The problem is that too many people’s motive for money or vanity or both makes them so unable or unwilling to recognize that it winds up costing themselves as much as everyone else in one sense. And another of the biggest problems is that far too many have tunnel vision perspective as “domainers” rather than viewing domain names with the vision, perspective and in empathy with end users and “the real world,” the real market. But Rick Schwartz gets it, and that’s why I have no doubt that golf.com in his hands, for instance, could easily have had us reading about a 9 figure deal in the same way we discovered the surprise long hidden truth about lasvegas.com at $90 million.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with requiring people to identify themselves before using a service off-line or online. It certainly provides better security to potential victims and accountability to anyone attempting to commit fraud. There’s always an up side and a downside to government regulation of the internet.
Wow.
Next time you go to a restaurant you would have to show your ID, or you can’t use a public toilet without identifying yourself. seems a bit exaggerated?
Sure, it seems extreme, but I have nothing to hide and a valid government/state issued ID that can be pulled out of my wallet and shown in less than 60 seconds. 60 seconds isn’t too inconvenient and provides comfort in knowing others I may be doing business with in that establishment have been vetted in some way as well. Obviously, that’s the upside. The downside has many forks in the road, excuses, and privacy concerns which some are valid and others are hyped.
I don’t know. Privacy around the world seems to be dying. 20 years ago people would have been concerned to be tracked 24/7. These days it seems to become acceptable.
Privacy is not just for criminals. We are forgetting that It is a basic human right.
http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
“Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence…”
Leftist-minded drivel
Well the downside to being required to post comments in your legal name would be the silencing of those fearful for their life, victims of domestic violence, not to mention political activists in a repressive environment and whistleblowers looking out for the common good.
Well said, and so much more, Jane, and so much more…
I agree 100% that there are legitimate reasons for wanting anonymity, however, the sad reality is that fraud runs so rampant online these days that it’s become a cloak, a disguise, a mask, a costume, and a defense for those committing fraud. There’s really no way to keep anyone safe through anonymity. The comfort of nobody knowing who you are because you fear being hurt by someone dissipates a little as soon as you get scammed through the very cloak you supported and nobody knows who scammed you. I’m sure we can respectfully agree to disagree since both sides have valid points and there really isn’t a solution that can keep everyone safe on both sides at the same time.
The Chinese governments reasons are not legitimate, it is about suppressing political dissent.
Well, except Chinese government is being hypocritical by employing hundred thousand fake commenters spreading its own propaganda and fake news both within China as well as abroad. So basically “do what I say and not what I do.”
Hmmm, I guess I will have to change my name to AnnoyingTeddy.com. Sort of like Kim Dotcom.
I wonder if they will stop allowing domain names to be registered under privacy. I have quite a few that are with Chinese registrars that are private.