Cheezburger Dumping GoDaddy over SOPA(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Cheezburger Dumping GoDaddy over SOPA
http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/22/cheezburgers-ben-huh-if-godaddy-supports-sopa-were-taking-our-1000-domains-elsewhere/
9 comments
Cheezburger is a perfect example of a company that has a lot to lose from SOPA. Its a site full of parodies and humor often directed against large brands. I expect that there are many people who would jump the the chance to make Cheezburger vanish from the web.
The fact that Cheezburger didn't dump GoDaddy over any of the scandals in the past, from their rampant sexism to elephant slaughter, bothers me.
I'm glad to see them taking this sort-of-a-stand right now, but they're not actually dumping GoDaddy over SOPA, they're only threatening to unless GoDaddy recants their support.
GoDaddy has already done the damage. If they were to recant their support now, the Congressmen in favor of SOPA could just dismiss it as folding under economic pressure, and still cite GoDaddy's original support as relevant.
I'd much rather see Cheezburger just dump them and be done with it.
I'm glad to see them taking this sort-of-a-stand right now, but they're not actually dumping GoDaddy over SOPA, they're only threatening to unless GoDaddy recants their support.
GoDaddy has already done the damage. If they were to recant their support now, the Congressmen in favor of SOPA could just dismiss it as folding under economic pressure, and still cite GoDaddy's original support as relevant.
I'd much rather see Cheezburger just dump them and be done with it.
Apparently owner Ben is a bit of a dick
http://gawker.com/5488509/inside-the-low+paying-cheezburger-...
http://gawker.com/5488509/inside-the-low+paying-cheezburger-...
Their main complaint is that the company pays slightly better than minimum wage? This smacks of Gawker just being sensationalist, especially when they themselves hire unpaid interns: http://gawker.com/5437382/come-intern-for-free-at-gawker-so-...
[deleted]
[deleted]
I work for Cheezburger. Believe me when I say we are very serious and the wheels are in motion.
The way I read your announcement was that if GD doesn't retract support, CB will move.
Now that GD claims to have retracted support, will CB stay with GD or is the move on regardless?
Now that GD claims to have retracted support, will CB stay with GD or is the move on regardless?
I'm not sure right now. That was the last I heard before I left for vacation... Keeping to our CEO's advice and not checking any work email until I'm back from the holidays. I'm sure by then it will be apparent one way or another.
To me, it is embarrassing that techies did not dump GoDaddy LONG ago, for their sophomoric and incredibly sexist advertising.
This backlash is long overdue.
This backlash is long overdue.
I've never used them personally, but I've heard a lot of horror stories where people got trapped in the service due to various policies making it very expensive and time-consuming to leave.
That said, they've certainly done enough to make me want to avoid them.
That said, they've certainly done enough to make me want to avoid them.
That didn't bother me as much as the elephant hunts, to be honest.
Lets get real here please, you eat (or at least the average human) 5+ cows in his lifetime and that kind of elephants are not an endangered specie.
For me, and I expect a lot of other people as well, the issue wasn't solely the fact that an elephant was shot.
It was Bob Parsons going to Africa in this "Great White Hunter" role, acting as though he were there to help the poor backwards natives who needed the elephant killed to protect their crops.
The reality is that he got a juvenile macho thrill out of the whole thing, from his patronizing handout of gaily colored GoDaddy hats for villagers to his gory video attempting to glamorize himself.
Yes, I love elephants and believe there are other ways to deal with some trampled crops besides shooting them. But the real point was what a lowlife Bob Parsons is, no matter what particular activity he's engaged in.
It was Bob Parsons going to Africa in this "Great White Hunter" role, acting as though he were there to help the poor backwards natives who needed the elephant killed to protect their crops.
The reality is that he got a juvenile macho thrill out of the whole thing, from his patronizing handout of gaily colored GoDaddy hats for villagers to his gory video attempting to glamorize himself.
Yes, I love elephants and believe there are other ways to deal with some trampled crops besides shooting them. But the real point was what a lowlife Bob Parsons is, no matter what particular activity he's engaged in.
Bob Parsons probably recognises he was being somewhat immature when he killed the elephant.
We, however, spare no thought about eating caged animals that were raised to be killed.
What's worse?
We, however, spare no thought about eating caged animals that were raised to be killed.
What's worse?
We, however, spare no thought about eating caged
animals that were raised to be killed.
On the other hand killing wild animals should be considered a crime.
I'm a vegetarian and feel the opposite. I don't have a big problem with hunters, assuming they eat their game. But raising caged animals to be eaten is unnecessary cruelty.
Animals eat animals because they have no other choice, but humans have the knowledge and empathy to live without killing.
Animals eat animals because they have no other choice, but humans have the knowledge and empathy to live without killing.
We have no natural enemies. We are 7 billion individuals that need to eat.
Cruelty is a human-invented concept. Hunting should be considered a crime because it brings irreversible changes to our planet.
Cruelty is a human-invented concept. Hunting should be considered a crime because it brings irreversible changes to our planet.
If your concern is feeding as many people as possible, wouldn’t it be best to ditch animals altogether? I would imagine that it’s more energy intensive to go from plants to animals to food than to go directly from plants to food.
(I’m no vegetarian.)
(I’m no vegetarian.)
[deleted]
This would be true if livestock ate human food. As it is they mostly eat things we can't, like grass, on land that is poor for agriculture. Feed corn usually just fattens them up there at the end, and I'm all for minimizing that disgusting process.
I'm from Iowa. I grew up around farms.
The idea that most of the meat we eat was once animals grazing on grass has sadly been untrue for a very long time.
Most cows, pigs, and chickens are raised in tightly-packed conditions, and fed things you really don't want to know about. There are grains in there, but a lot of nasty things get mixed in with them.
A lot of land that could go to raising human food instead goes to growing soybeans, corn and grain that are fed to livestock. You're right that we can't just divert the grains from animals to people, but if that land were used to raise human instead of animal food, we'd be able to produce 16x as much food by volume as we do with meat.
The idea that most of the meat we eat was once animals grazing on grass has sadly been untrue for a very long time.
Most cows, pigs, and chickens are raised in tightly-packed conditions, and fed things you really don't want to know about. There are grains in there, but a lot of nasty things get mixed in with them.
A lot of land that could go to raising human food instead goes to growing soybeans, corn and grain that are fed to livestock. You're right that we can't just divert the grains from animals to people, but if that land were used to raise human instead of animal food, we'd be able to produce 16x as much food by volume as we do with meat.
I don't understand the logic here. It's okay to kill animals as long as they've spent their entire lives in human-inflicted suffering?
For the record, I eat meat, and I have few qualms about eating caged animals, but arguing it as more humane is beyond perplexing to me.
For the record, I eat meat, and I have few qualms about eating caged animals, but arguing it as more humane is beyond perplexing to me.
You can't justify one wrong by saying the average human does something worse. The average human is a vicious, barbaric monster. Both killing wild animals and eating animals from factory farms is wrong.
Did he actually admit any of this or are you just projecting, er assuming?
That's utterly irrelevant. I find elephants in the wild beautiful, worthy of protection, and not as far from endangered as you think. It's my personal opinion to find elephant hunters equivalent to scumsucking reprobates, and to direct my dollars away from their businesses.
By your logic, we should all universally also have no issue with hunting dogs or cats or really any goddamn animal not on the brink of extinction.
By your logic, we should all universally also have no issue with hunting dogs or cats or really any goddamn animal not on the brink of extinction.
It was a culling. Too many elephants, not enough resources. That elephant wasn't hunted so much as scheduled for termination. And we do do the same thing with surplus dogs and cats here in the US at least.
Still, paying to do the shooting is even creepier than hunting an elephant. Forget the tracking, stalking, and pay to just enjoy the killing? Eww. Imagine the Humane Society auctioning off a day operating the kitty gas chamber.
Still, paying to do the shooting is even creepier than hunting an elephant. Forget the tracking, stalking, and pay to just enjoy the killing? Eww. Imagine the Humane Society auctioning off a day operating the kitty gas chamber.
"It was a culling"
^ This argument makes no sense to me. http://www.progressiveboink.com/jon/images/calvinhobbes/jon5...
LOGAN'S tRUNk
I'm not familiar with the elephant hunts with regard to godaddy @ all, does anyone have a link? But I've heard that a lot of the wild game hunt trips in Africa actually cause animals to be raised, so the net result is an actual increase in the animals - not sure if it is relevant in this case or to you in general.
Yes, that is correct. It is wrong to not give cats and dogs special privileges because they are prettier and more easily domesticated?
Plus, it was an isolated decision of a member of godaddy, there was no meeting at godaddy to decide the killing of the elephant.
Plus, it was an isolated decision of a member of godaddy, there was no meeting at godaddy to decide the killing of the elephant.
Not a member, but the CEO. His actions should absolutely reflect on GoDaddy as a whole.
It should bother you. A lot. Especially when there are articles bemoaning the lack of women in IT.
Money: the only vote that matters!
We're not consumers, we're investors. Investing in socially irresponsible corporations such as GoDaddy is no longer acceptable, and as a community we need to perfect the art of boycotting.
I would love to see a corporate "social-responsibility" wiki that let's people track corporate behavior. If we can make it easy to see what causes we support as consumers, the quicker we can rid the market of these parasites.
We're not consumers, we're investors. Investing in socially irresponsible corporations such as GoDaddy is no longer acceptable, and as a community we need to perfect the art of boycotting.
I would love to see a corporate "social-responsibility" wiki that let's people track corporate behavior. If we can make it easy to see what causes we support as consumers, the quicker we can rid the market of these parasites.
They are threatening to dump them, they haven't officially done it yet.
I just xfered all 12 of my domains I had with godaddy. I know 12 isn't a lot but every little bit helps.
[deleted]
[deleted](1)
with 1000 domains, it has to be an empty threat, it's a pain in the ass to move one domain at a time, I can just imagine doing that 1000 times.
I know some vendors offer bulk domain transfer, but I'd imagine the complicated bit would still be there(i.e. confirming the authorization code and confirming domain ownership with the confirmation codes)
Or is that wrong and there is a way to move domains without confirming?
I know some vendors offer bulk domain transfer, but I'd imagine the complicated bit would still be there(i.e. confirming the authorization code and confirming domain ownership with the confirmation codes)
Or is that wrong and there is a way to move domains without confirming?
I moved about 90 domains from GoDaddy to NameCheap when Bob Parsons was reveling in elephant slaughter, and it was remarkably easy.
I don't remember the details of the situation, but I do remember NameCheap being incredibly helpful in making it as painless as possible.
I don't remember the details of the situation, but I do remember NameCheap being incredibly helpful in making it as painless as possible.
A small datapoint: I moved 6 of my domains off of GoDaddy last night: incredibly easy. A small cost, but I feel OK about that. Even without scripting it, I bet I could move 1000 domains in one day of work.
I guess there's some amount of domains where it stops being your problem and becomes the new provider's problem, because you're a good deal for them. Not sure if 1000 is a high enough number, but it might be...
Kind of like a difference between "could you help me with those 10 packs of drinks?" and "I'd like a truck load of drinks from you, how will you make this happen?"
Kind of like a difference between "could you help me with those 10 packs of drinks?" and "I'd like a truck load of drinks from you, how will you make this happen?"