> Next-level deplatforming. From a non-profit. That essential controls the internet. Yay.

And it’s pretty rich coming from ICANN after they eliminated .org price caps (coincidentally) before their associates tried to usurp the registry for private equity interests.

It’s almost funny to see these multi billion dollar grifters disparaging someone for theft (copyright infringement).

I wonder what a decentralized version of DNS would look like.

Consider checking out HNS.[0]

[0] https://www.handshake.org

Or Namecoin, or Blockstack, or OpenAlias, or ENS, or....

That's tor.

Tor's onion addresses aren't human-meaningful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zooko%27s_triangle

People don't type addresses, they open google, type "facebook" there and click the first link. Phishing often relies on similarity between different domain names. Switching to tor domains will remove assumption of reliability of domain name reading.

It will be harder to verify whether an address is real or fake. You would have to trust the search engines. Offloading the responsibility to google basically makes google the DNS provider

Phishing wouldn't work if addresses were easy to verify. And safe browsing services wouldn't be needed either.

And replaces it with what exactly? A trusted source of truth? Meaning Google? Haha.

There is approximately zero overlap between the userbase of Tor and the group of people who get to Facebook by Googling "facebook".

Userbase of tor has no problem with onion domains.

I do :)

I don't know how you got here today but I:

    1. Opened a new tab.
    2. Pressed the n key.
    3. Pressed enter.

Where does it matter if it's readable if I have bookmarks?

Readable addresses means you can go to some site for the first time and be sure it's the address you wanted. It's not a SHA256 checksum, but it's human-doable in some seconds.

one that comes to mind is urbit.org :)

No way, man. This isn't cancel culture. This is just a non-profit exercising their rights. If he doesn't like it, all he has to do is create his own internet and a procedure for assigning DNS names and IP addresses and then get the whole world to switch over to it. /s

When you're a state-sponsored monopoly the rules are a bit different whether you're a private entity or not. So it'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

(I know ICANN is not currently being sponsored by the US government anymore, but they were given their monopoly that way)

>all he has to do is create his own internet and a procedure for assigning DNS names and IP addresses

Or, y'know, just set up a copy of the DNS system using the existing software and standards for the existing Internet, but using different root servers.

DNS is well documented and open source for the most part, so it's not as if ICANN's control of the root servers means they can't be bypassed.

Or use one of the many alternative DNS that the market already created to solve this problem?

Continuously fixing ICANN’s decisions keeps alternatives from catching on.

Alternatives are meaningless unless they can get mainstream adoption from the software makers of the majority.

Exactly. It's a free market. Come on.

There is no free market. Just copyrights / patents alone show that. If I had invented something or way more likely came up with something obvious I should not be looking over my shoulder and waiting for some corporation to sue me for rounded corners or button placed on the form. Suddenly those big corps run crying to their daddy for protection.

Never heard of a non-profit that takes bribes.

“Not only that, but they’re also upset I was wanted by Interpol.”

Deplatforming?

Time for anti-trust lawsuits.

Doesn’t work when the monopoly is created by the government.

In what jurisdiction(s)?

His home jurisdiction, I suppose.

Comically, this is what the riaa did with making claims against Sunde based on US laws and applying them to Sweden.

I think ICANN is a US corporation, but if they are impacting a Swedish company I’m sure there’s some local law that can be used.

US law is default but ICANN connection to the UN could allow someone to sue in any UN registered country. Though, I am not an expert on law.

I thought ICANN has no connection to the UN.

It used to have a connection to the US department of commerce but that ended years ago.

Los Angeles.

[deleted]

> he concealed criminal history.

But he didn't. The box on the form said "Have you been convicted for fraud?". He hasn't, so he didn't check the box.

Maybe the ICANN-we-dont-want-to-police-the-internet-but-then-we-do-it-anyway-people need more boxes on their forms.

Is it legal to discriminate based on past convictions? What if a parent was convicted, can it be inherited?

In the US, yes. “Convicted felon” is not a protected class. Many businesses ask during your application or hiring process if you’ve ever been “convicted of a felony”. The idea is: “we don’t want a thief manning the cash registers!” There’s also the general misconception that “if you’re in, or were in, prison, it’s because you’re a bad person.” But the problem is: they served their debt to society (jail), and innocent people are jailed all the time.

If they were still a threat to society after 5 years or whatever, then they shouldn’t’ve been sentenced to just 5 years. And with innocent people being convicted, the bar to get it fixed is very high because (in some states), you have to not only prove you’re innocence, but that the prosecution messed up (such as withholding evidence). And don’t forget about prosecutorial immunity!

And if it is fixed, how do you answer that question? Yes, you were convicted, but it’s not on your record because you proved your innocence. Yes? No? Answer yes, and you’re denied. Answer no, and when they find out about it, you’re fired, and can only hope your bosses will fight for you and win.

It’s sad really.

Would letting a murderer manning the cash registers be dangerous too?

Maybe this is an unpopular opinion, I don't know.

Presumably if they were let out of prison it's been decided that they are not longer a risk or have paid their debt to society.

So no, convicted murderers should not be prevented from being a cashier, nor any other job they qualify for. At any rate, the best way to steer someone back into crime is to take away their ability to have a job. How else are they supposed to survive?

If he got out of prison than that suggests he's not a serial killer and thus safe to undertake in societal activities, like shopping or manning a cash register. Really the only real to deny a job to a released convict is if their crime directly correlates to the job, I.E. don't hire someone who was convicted for embezzling $200 million as your accountant.

You know the GPs answer to this is No. Perhaps explain why you think it _is_ more dangerous?

Theft is relevant to cash, but murder isn't.

Well, if they’re out of prison, then it’s been decided that they’re no longer a threat to society. Because, in a lot of prisons, you can be kept past your date on certain conditions. So why not let them man a register?

I’m not saying you can’t keep a close eye on them. I’m sure a manager would be doing that. What I’m saying is: in America, society has decided that you’re worthless if you go to prison. We try so hard to keep people from reintegrating into the real world, it’s no wonder our recidivism rate is so high.

i applied for employment in a casino in the past, part of the application asked for familial references.

application denied, due to criminal contacts- as in they investigated my familial references and found an extended family member with unsavoury past.

summary- no hire due to the conduct of a person other than yourself

It shouldn't be, but it appears to be almost a core value in some cultures.

Its is for industries that require trust and for company directors.

Ask an Australian.

He is not wanted by interpol as he was arrested in 2014 and has served his time in Swedish prison. He was asked if he was convicted of fraud which he was not.

Did you read the whole article?

>“Not only that, but they’re also upset I was wanted by Interpol.”

Note the use of "was" here.

> I got some sort of semi-excuse regarding their claim that I lied on my application. They also said that they agreed it wasn’t fraud or similar really. So both of the points they made regarding the denial were not really the reason,” Sunde clarifies.

This sounds different from "concealing criminal history".

Guilty until proven innocent, you mean?

Technically you're not a criminal until convicted, only suspected. Likewise, you're not a criminal if you've served your time. The US culture of "ex cons" is shameful.

This culture is not just the US. But sure they probably love to "deplatform" people from ever having decent life again and keep them into that slave low pay factory.

Turkey goes to a further extreme. You cannot even call a criminal a criminal after it has served the punishment.

OT: I really hate seeing this in threads. Perhaps HN would be better served by a "disavow" function that would remove the username from the post? A person could edit out any potentially identifying information and disavow the post, leaving the content for context.

I don’t see the problem. He has shown over many years that he isn’t someone to be trusted with this type of accreditation. His past convictions aside, he has shown that breaking the rules is his normalcy. He is still active with many members that still coordinate with illegal activities. Yes ICANN has too much power, but I understand and respect their rejecting Sunde.

> He has shown over many years that he isn’t someone to be trusted with this type of accreditation. His past convictions aside, he has shown that breaking the rules is his normalcy.

Is the URL bar lying to me? Am I actually on Bootlicker News, where hackers are not to be trusted, overly-powerful and unaccountable institutions get "understand[ing] and respect", and rulebreaking is grounds for excommunication?

You don't see the problem because you are the problem.

I accept my inevitable gray punishment for negative meta discussion but it's worth stating, HN is overwhelmingly corporatist and authoritarian these days.

Somewhat orthogonal to this discussion, but I'm so glad Urbit is gaining steam every day.

The internet founded by the crazy far-right dude that believes in the Dark Enlightenment? I’ll pass.

"The Dark Enlightenment" means you think the Enlightenment was bad, it would be clearer to say that he does not think the Enlightenment was a good thing, for a general audience.

Wait till you see the body count for the organization that developed the internet.

I’m not going to support anyone that makes a profit breaking the rules, gets caught, says sorry not sorry, continues to profit off breaking the rules in the name of privacy and free internet, and then cries that they’re no longer trusted to break the rules.

> I’m not going to support anyone that makes a profit breaking the rules, gets caught, says sorry not sorry, continues to profit off breaking the rules

So no Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple, etc?

I agree with the idea that ICANN seems to be in a reasonable way. They are based on the idea of control over companies/groups that MUST work by an agreed upon set of rules if the system is to work. Peter has proven over the years that he is comfortable breaking whatever rules he decides to. Choosing not to work with someone with that mindset seems reasonable for ICANN.

However, I do think they should come out with a clear, public statement of why those chose not to work with him.

On a tangent... I am really uncomfortable with the fact that your comment was downvoted (enough to be noticeable). I get that people may disagree with the opinion you are expressing with it, but I was under the impression that downvotes on HN are supposed to be for comments that are off topic / do not move the conversation forward / inappropriate / etc. Your comment very clearly does not fall afoul of those rules; it's an opinion to be discussed.

Im not a hacker of networks, but I had to learn how stuff words when I had a pirate bay chatroom manager go to reddit and other places and do as much slandering as he/she could. I still dont know what he /she did that against me? Im even politically kinda on their side. So it baffled and still baffles me why so much personal hate against me. I now discover that entire internet relay chat, and hacktivist cultures online, are blindly on pirate bay side, because they dont use their own judgements as independent humans (independent of the need to have a leader or a superstar to follow...). Its sad that intelligent people cannot keep a neutral ground for themselves and even judge their own friends from a neutral perpective. I have been severely harassed by a pirate bay admin and still I dont hate the pirate bay, I try to investigate what made the manager of the pirate bay today harass me with such devotion. But then I see that people who follow the pirate bay mindsets and politics aren't exactly free thinking individuals. They come from the extreme-leftist political area where violence is JUSTIFIED always if its used against ''the enemies''. And im their enemy apparently. Im not even a fuc...cen journo lady.Im a NOBODY.

How is not being able to be a domain registrar deplatforming?

Just be your own registrar....... oh.

How is it not deplatforming when you campaign to get registrars to deplatform people and then also say they can't be a registrar themselves