I’m happy to say that I’ve now moved all but one of my domains away from GoDaddy.

I’m happy to say that I’ve now moved all but one of my domains away from GoDaddy. The last one was an ill-advised multi-year subscription so I’ll still be with them for a bit longer, but the good side is that I have not given GoDaddy a cent in several years now. I regret the dollars that I’ve given them in the past, given the way they’ve spent their cash on tasteless advertising and bad lobbying.

15 replies on “I’m happy to say that I’ve now moved all but one of my domains away from GoDaddy.”

  1. I agree with their tasteless advertising (why I’ve mostly avoided them, except when I got a domain through Google Apps), but what’s wrong with their lobbying?  I know about the SOPA thing, but that was short-lived and more than two years ago.

  2. Chris Nandor well, my negative opinion solidified around the time of the SOPA explosion which was the last straw. Their non-apology for that was big deal to me. Upon reflection I guess I have not heard anything blatantly negative about them since then on the internet politics front, but to me that was enough.

  3. PETA and the other animal conservation groups were quite disturbed. Reputedly, the CEO was rather proud of himself for coming to the rescue of the farming community. Of course, the farmers had expanded further into the elephant’s traditional range. It’s no surprise that the elephants stomped about on the fields as is their way. It’s unfortunate that an alternate solution wasn’t found to perhaps relocate some of the herd to a proper preserve. CEO could have contributed the cash to make that happen instead of dropping one of them.

  4. Andrew Gardner I couldn’t care less about what PETA thinks.  They oppose all killing of animals (except for killing unwanted animals in their shelters, apparently), and therefore their opposition is meaningless to me, since I see absolutely nothing wrong, in the abstract, with killing animals.

    So I’m not trying to be argumentative, but I am just saying you didn’t give me any reason to think he did anything wrong, because you didn’t give any indication that there’s something actually wrong with killing an elephant.

    Again, I am open to the idea that it is wrong, in this case or in general or by default, but I have no reason to assume it, which is what your words seem to be asking me to do: by saying an alternative could’ve been found, you’re saying that killing the animal was somehow undesirable, which is something that hasn’t been demonstrated to me.

  5. I, too, am not on board with PETA, but elephants have been on an endangered list since 1989: http://www.cites.org/eng/prog/etis/index.php

    This list is used to track illegal ivory sales. While some countries are not signatories, and farm elephants for trophy hunters, I personally feel that if the majority of the world gives an animal legal protection from hunting that we all should.

    Imagine if he’d gone whaling in Japan instead. I think the media furor would have been much louder. My $.02.

  6. Christian Dolan That page doesn’t say what species are endangered, and I don’t know what species was killed by Parsons.  And actually, the African Elephant is not endangered, according to the WWF (https://worldwildlife.org/species/african-elephant status: vulnerable, which means “high risk of endangerment”), so if that was the species, then it was not endangered.

    Further, if it was a rogue elephant as is claimed, and was a danger to the lives or livlihoods of human beings, I could not care less if it is endangered, even critically.  Humans First.  Maybe the humans did something wrong to cause the elephant to lash out, maybe not … but at that point, I don’t care.  Humans First.  You could make the case that if it is endangered, then another way could’ve been found, but you’d have to show it is endangered AND describe what else could’ve been done (in more than a handwavey fashion) to convince me.

    And I do not have any such feeling that if the majority of the world does anything, that we should follow suit.  Not a single shred of a such a feeling exists in me.  🙂  I use reason and logic, not a herd mentaltity.

  7. It isn’t an issue of being a member of the herd. I look at someone else’s position, whether an individual or a country’s , and decide, using logic and reason, whether I agree with them or not (i.e. sometimes the herd knows to avoid a predator and moves as a group for safety, etc.)

    In this case, I decided that I agree with their position to protect the species overall. CITES tracks illegal ivory sales, so yes, not endangered, but monitored and offered certain legal protections. 

    I agree with you, humans first. I’m against unnecessary testing (consumer products, etc.), but if animal testing of drugs saves human lives, then I vote yes. 

    As for it being rogue, let the authorities (whatever the local equivalent to Fish & Game) handle it, not some rich dude shooting strictly for sport.

  8. Christian Dolan What you said was: “I personally feel that if the majority of the world gives an animal legal protection from hunting that we all should.”

    That is completely different, to me, from looking at why they want to give an animal legal protection, and making a decision to agree or not based on the merits.

    As to letting authorities handle it: I reject that. Even here in the U.S., where help is more likely to come than in most African nations, I’ll shoot an animal that is threatening humans or their livelihoods, if the authorities aren’t there to do it.  I won’t wait around if damage is being done.  Are you going to compensate the people who are harmed?  The government won’t.

    (We have a similar issue here in WA, where there’s debate over what circumstances it is legal to use lethal means against wolves.  But if it is me, I will kill a wolf threatening people or their property, period.)

Comments are closed.