• rottingleaf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

      • toynbee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        I don’t know any but I’m now of the opinion that they should be reassigned to Superman.

    • Draconic NEO@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      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.

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        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.

        • Draconic NEO@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          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.