But ambiguity is the worst thing for a top-level domain. Unknowingly, this decision created an environment in which .su became a digital wild west. Today, it is a barely policed top-level domain, a plausibly deniable home for Russian dark ops and a place where supremacist content and cyber-crime have found cover.
So much drama.
“Supremacist content”, “dark ops”, “cyber-crime”.
“The free world” has recently equated itself to Hitler at least two more times, and somebody’s worried that there are places with less censorship.
Also my anecdotal experience with .su domains is better than with .ru domains.
I guess by “cybercrime” they mean piracy, because that’s the main thing I’ve seen .su used for.
If that’s what they mean by cybercrime they’re bigger bootlickers than I originally thought. Like it’s one thing to not want to support piracy, it’s a whole nother thing to outright say the quiet part out loud. Which, yeah that’s what they just did if that’s what they really meant. It’s already bad enough that they supposedly want domains to be aggressively policed, I mean like I said in my other comment, serious “no swearing allowed on the internet vibes” going on from how they wrote that part…
Come to think of it, I only know two .su domains and they’re pretty great…
It’s really weird that somebody wants more policing at the top level of domains? Like seriously this is giving off the “There should be no swearing allowed on the internet” vibes.
Well, if you want my version, centralized DNS and centralized PKI reliant on bureaucracy are all wrong.
Identity providers should be a thing, and under one identity provider there should be ability to fix whatever domain name one wants, the act confirmed with cryptography. The providers themselves should technically be identified only by their public keys, and those should be listed in directories similar to yellow pages, changing very rarely preferably, where a key is listed against provider’s company name, phone, whether it’s paid or not, etc. Such directories being shared should be the only thing centralized here.
Our world has a lot of ugly, inefficient and vulnerable systems.
But the worst part is that common gaslighting or madness or whatever, where people act along unnecessary inefficiencies they themselves don’t need, like sheep watched by a shepherd dog. It’s obvious that various trash in governments wants systems vulnerable and centralized. But that’s what only they need, and only a handful of technologies they’ve rebuilt after that need. I don’t understand why the rest build bad systems where they don’t have to and don’t need to, or eve prefer bad systems where they have good ones.
It’s similar to the question of why people subject to genocide often don’t fight for their lives, at least until it’s too late.
Agreed, these systems are far too important to remain as centralized and vulnerable as they are currently. It is in governments’ best interests but not our own that they remain this way. Hopefully in the future things do change, I imagine the biggest push away from centralized DNS and centralized PKI will be from the fallout of shit like this breaking stuff and losing money.
