1. freeserver.com/~userna <- This was the first URl you could have, sometimes with something inside another directory (freeserver.com/users/u/~usernam).
2. username.freeserver.com <- This wasn't that bad but it didn't look professional. Tripod used to do this.
3. username.fs.com <-- A service with a short domain that provided free subdomains. This was similar to 2 but shorter. Some of them allowed you to chose the domian part.
4. username.tk <-- Among all the free options, this was the best one by far.
Then we grew up a bit and started paying domains :')
https://web.archive.org/web/20010331143129/http://www.kliman...
SPOILER: I didn’t become a webdesigner
Probably not the smartest thing to do at the time since I may have opened up all ports on the router to get it to work, lol. No https. No security. No moderation. Copy and pasted some html from a site that I thought was cool, search and replaced text to make it my own.
It was kind of like a microblog before twitter, fb, ig, blogspot, tumblr.
.tk was a blessing for us.
I think both of those pages were hosted in geocities and had pretty long urls...
Name server changes are still done through email.
Serious question, Heroku and .tk were such amazing services if you weren't old enough to get a credit card.
You can’t win with these people, I personally think this is the best outcome and shows our systems work (albeit slowly). Sure it took a while, but now there doesn’t have to be a precedent of Cloudflare acting as the internet police more than it has to.
This is the classic fallacy of assuming that because you see comments of type A and comments of type B on the same forum that means they're the same people. They're usually not.
A more accurate way to phrase this is "you can't win with ... people". Whatever you do will end up ticking off some subset of the population.
It'd be interesting if you could point to a single example of someone taking both sides. I strongly doubt these are the same people.
This comparison actually highlights that there is no “system”, because some (imaginary) impersonal entity decides that those bad actors are allowed, and those bad actors are not allowed. Some public sensibilities are given as a reason, but no one is actually asking anyone's opinion on anything. Still, there are people who believe that Santa Claus brings presents for free, and that the whole thing is not governed by typical hypocrisy and typical politics behind closed doors. The thing is, you've built a turnpike, you can now bargain with people interested in sharing control over that turnpike.
How do you end up in this limbo where you need critical infrastructure to play judge?
People who want to live in a just world often get in the way of things. I'm just not sure why you're mad at those who want justice and not those who put profits above all else?
> that Cloudflare hosts these criminals
Oh.. it's not that they host them, it's that they go out of their way to protect them, and the profit streams associated with them.
I hope the CEO doesn't drink too much tequila tonight during the celebrations
I'd rather ICANN finally introduce .free, give a few years to alert everyone, and those developing spam filters can treat it how they want.
I'd be happy with that one shut down too.
I'm not sure in what way this is a "loss". I doubt cloudflare is losing money (or revenue) here. Especially if many of these domains are spammy, it seems like this is probably not much of anything for them.
I don't think it will help reducing malware/scams/phishing. But it will hurt students and young people that want to start in en development and aren't able to pay for a domain.
But like we learned from .af, any of these TLDs technically meant for a country need to be considered ephemeral. You are sort of borrowing it without explicit (or lasting) permission.
Understandable, but a loss all the same. I'll never forget how proud I felt as a kid when I first had a URL I could give to people.
When it because moderately successful, they didn't renew, and then wanted 50€/year.