[LINK] Democrats launch anti-filtering site
stil at stilgherrian.com
Wed May 20 17:41:19 EST 2009
On 20/05/2009, at 5:18 PM, Darrell Burkey wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 16:44, Stilgherrian wrote:
>> Also, are where the site it hosted or what the domain name is
>> versus "country-specific", REALLY the most important issues to be
>> discussing here?
> When the topic is net filtering I think it's entirely relevant. It
> to their credibility, or lack thereof, if they can't get even the very
> basics of using the net right. Why listen to their views on net
> filtering if they can't even get the simple things right?
This is perhaps my question. Is it "wrong" to use a .com instead of,
say, .au? Does anyone actually care about this, apart from folks old
enough (including me) to remember when this WAS a big deal?
I don't know that sticking to 20-year-old guidelines for what domains
were used for what really matters any more. What DOES matter is people
having an easy-to-remember or easy-to-type address.
> And personally, it annoys the crap out of me that so many Australian
> organisations don't identify themselves as Australian with their
> name. What are they hiding?
Why are you assuming they're "hiding" something?
Personally, I use a .com domain rather than a .com.au because whether
I'm "in Australia" or not isn't especially relevant. I may move one
day. I write about global issues (sometimes).
All that said, I do advise businesses with (solely) an Australian
presence to use .com.au because some customers may find that it adds
credibility. But that's just an assertion I'm making. Does anyone have
any research, I wonder?
Recent research, I mean.
Internet, IT and Media Consulting, Sydney, Australia
mobile +61 407 623 600
fax +61 2 9516 5630
ABN 25 231 641 421
More information about the Link