Is A Naked Danica Patrick Working To Quell GoDaddy Boycott Efforts?

from the timing-is-everything dept

Thu, Dec 29th 2011 7:20am — Mike Masnick

Well, today was the day originally scheduled as the GoDaddy boycott day, in which people who had registered domains with GoDaddy were going to transfer them out. With GoDaddy officially dropping support for SOPA, there have been some questions about whether or not that boycott will still happen in significant numbers. There have already been some high profile transfers, such as from the Imgur folks, and there are still plenty of people talking about going through with the boycott as planned.

However, GoDaddy seems to be focusing on what's worked for it in the past: advertising with scantily clad women (and Danica Patrick in particular). Apparently it's been putting full page ads in the NY Times (and other papers?) with Patrick covered strategically by a sign.

And... the strategy may have worked so far.

While tons of domains transferred out at the end of last week, this week has been a bit of a different story. On Monday, it looks like GoDaddy basically broke even, with 18,401 new registrations and 14,853 transfers in... vs only 8,862 transfers out and 24,120 domains deleted. That netted out to an increase for GoDaddy of 272 domains. Tuesday was even more positive for the company. Even though another 16,662 domains were transferred out and another 27,564 were deleted, there was a big bump in new registrations: 31,574 (perhaps driven by new ads?) and another 15,452 transferred in. Net change? 2,800 in the plus column for GoDaddy. Finally, that same trend continued for Wednesday: an impressive 33,251 new registrations and 17,549 transfers in. That goes against 15,524 transfers out and 30,634 deletions. Net: 4,642 more domains under GoDaddy control.

Left unanswered: is this a lull before a bunch of transfers today? Or has the whole boycott issue subsided?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: advertising, boycott, danica patrick, domains, pipa, protect ip, public, sopa
Companies: godaddy

105 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Hephaestus (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 7:09am

The Danica Patrick, "got milk?" poster made me laugh, she's a pirates dream.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 7:09am
  
  Re:
  If you don't know the punch line ...
  
  sunken chest
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Larr gumb, 25 Feb 2012 @ 9:32am
  
  Response to: Hephaestus on Dec 29th, 2011 @ 7:09am
  Let's face it weak women and weak men hate Danica because of he strength! I'm now a Go. Daddy guy!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Larry, 25 Feb 2012 @ 9:36am
  
  Response to: Hephaestus on Dec 29th, 2011 @ 7:09am
  In fact I'd like to pose nude with Danica! CIA meets Danica for massive meltowns!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rich, 29 Dec 2011 @ 7:29am

Am I the only one who never found her very attractive?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DandonTRJ (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 7:38am
  
  Response to: Rich on Dec 29th, 2011 @ 7:29am
  Nope, you've got high-profile company.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rich, 29 Dec 2011 @ 7:48am
    
    Re: Response to: Rich on Dec 29th, 2011 @ 7:29am
    God, he's funny. My daughter loves him. Thanks for the link!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 8:26am
  
  Re:
  I don't, but she looks far to much like my mother.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Inverse137, 29 Dec 2011 @ 11:11am
    
    Re: Re:
    MILF!!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Devil's Coachman (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 8:52am
  
  Re:
  Good chance of that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2011 @ 9:47am
  
  Re:
  If GoDaddy really wanted to please people, they would pay her to put on additional clothes.
  
  I agree, I don't understand the appeal, other than hurr durr she done drived cars what goes fast.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Alex, 29 Dec 2011 @ 11:08am
  
  Re:
  Yes.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Inverse137, 29 Dec 2011 @ 11:10am
  
  Re:
  YES!!!
  
  "I am boycotting GoDaddy and transfering all my domains to....OHH....BOOBIES!"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- danniboy, 29 Dec 2011 @ 11:12am
  
  Re:
  Yes
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Namd, 29 Dec 2011 @ 12:58pm
  
  Response to: Rich on Dec 29th, 2011 @ 7:29am
  Yes
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2011 @ 7:33am

But GoDaddy has NOT dropped support for SOPA (or PIPA)
All they've done is issue a weasel-worded press release that vaguely suggests that they won't support this version of SOPA...at the moment...maybe.

That's it.

It's typical of how GoDaddy handles issues: stonewall, deny, then lie...and wait until the furor dies down to go right back to what they were doing. No doubt some gullible people will fall for it -- they always do. But anyone who's actually been paying attention over the past decade knows that GoDaddy can never be trusted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Inverse137, 29 Dec 2011 @ 11:13am
  
  Re: But GoDaddy has NOT dropped support for SOPA (or PIPA)
  I wouldn't exactly call it "typical GoDaddy." It is not reserved just for GoDaddy. You are naive if you believe this is anything other than typical MBA speak. A company has no obligation to anyone other than its shareholders. NONE.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - bjupton (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 1:37pm
    
    Re: Re: But GoDaddy has NOT dropped support for SOPA (or PIPA)
    Heh... companies are often failing their shareholders too.
    
    Of course, if the top execs have stock or options, then they'll be happy to goose the stock price short term, even if it is not in the interest of the company long term.
    
    These execs will then be poised to get out with more warning than the public holder would have, as they have first crack at the books.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spaceman Spiff, 29 Dec 2011 @ 7:33am

Transferring from GoDaddy
I have about a half-dozen domains registered with GoDaddy, and as soon as I decide where to move them, move them I will. It will probably be after the New Year, but it will happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- el_segfaulto (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 8:24am
  
  Re: Transferring from GoDaddy
  I decided to wait until today to move my side company's 8 domains (inherited from the last guy). I use 1and1.com for my own domains and will be using them again. I've never had any issues and their prices seem to be pretty par for the course. The interface is navigable and from what I've heard the customer service is good (I've never had to deal with them). I'm definitely not recommending them over anybody else (GoDaddy notwithstanding) but they are an option.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- c0c0c0 (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 2:31pm
  
  Re: Transferring from GoDaddy
  I have used surpasshosting.com since 2004. Good prices on domains and plans, and great uptime. They are constantly upgrading their hardware and software, and their official and non official support is great. If you use them tell them that crazyco refered you please.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2011 @ 7:34am

NameCheap transfer counter
NameCheap has a coupon code for transfers from GoDaddy, which makes the transfer slightly cheaper, and most important, donates $1 for the EFF.

Why most important? Because they have, on the same page and in their front page, a counter of how much this coupon code already raised for the EFF. Since each transfer raises $1, the counter directly counts the number of domains transfered to them today.

At this moment, it is over 5100 and counting. Will it get to over 9000? And do other registrars have a similar counter?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 10:58am
  
  Re: NameCheap transfer counter
  Damn it, I didn't know that. I'm trying to transfer my domain again today, so it's whatever the count is plus one.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 11:00am
    
    Re: Re: NameCheap transfer counter
    PS: and it's over $11,000 at 2:00pm EST.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Spointman (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 11:36am
      
      Re: Re: Re: NameCheap transfer counter
      2:30pm EST and it's over $12,000, of which six are mine. =) (Yes, I shifted my six domains over from GoDaddy.)
      
      My guess is it will spike even further towards the evening as those chained to their offices go home and start moving their personal domains.
      
      For what it's worth, the actual process of moving the domains was surprisingly painless. I'd read some horror stories, and I feared I might run into roadblocks or (as a few people suggested) get actively blocked by GoDaddy, but none of that was the case for me. Less than two hours end to end.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2011 @ 2:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: NameCheap transfer counter
        Passed $18k around 5:30 eastern.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rex, 29 Dec 2011 @ 7:35am

Deleted mine
I had one i barely used anymore. Deleted it today just out of spite :p
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yankee Infidel, 29 Dec 2011 @ 7:36am

maybe it is time for Danica Patrick to drop GoDaddy as her racing sponsor
This could seriously come back to bite her if she does not drop them. In this politically charged environment, that last thing she needs to be associated with (out of ignorance) is crony capitalism and fascism (by having their main sponsor support SOPA and PIPA).

P.S.: Rich, to each his own, but I would have to say that you may be dead below the waist. :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2011 @ 7:39am
  
  Re: maybe it is time for Danica Patrick to drop GoDaddy as her racing sponsor
  Godaddy is piling millions of dollars a year into her pockets and into the pockets of the race teams she works with. They get incredible levels of exposure as a result of their deals with her, and her move to NASCAR full time this year just ups to level even more of them.
  
  Danica Patrick isn't stupid enough to bite the hand that feeds her - especially one that feeds her so well.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2011 @ 10:46am
    
    Re: Re: maybe it is time for Danica Patrick to drop GoDaddy as her racing sponsor
    "Danica Patrick isn't stupid enough to bite the hand that feeds her - especially one that feeds her so well."
    
    And that hand is holding a very small penis, which is covered in godaddy.
    
    You know what godaddy is right? It's that frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is often the result of anal sex.
    
    Eeeewwwww! Danica!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- hothmonster, 29 Dec 2011 @ 9:05am
  
  Re: maybe it is time for Danica Patrick to drop GoDaddy as her racing sponsor
  Nascar fans and politics don't tend to mix. As long as she doesn't bash god and ends every few sentances in 'Merica she will be fine. She drives fast, turns left and has boobs she will be a nascar star for life
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 9:49am
    
    Re: Re: maybe it is time for Danica Patrick to drop GoDaddy as her racing sponsor
    I wouldn't put money on that first sentence. In fact, I'd say Nascar fans are slightly more likely than average to tell someone like GoDaddy to GoFuck themselves.
    
    The last, that's more or less correct because a fair majority of the fans are male.
    
    The second, that's just you being an asshat.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - hothmonster, 29 Dec 2011 @ 11:09am
      
      Re: Re: Re: maybe it is time for Danica Patrick to drop GoDaddy as her racing sponsor
      your good at this game.
      
      1) From my experience with hardcore Nascar fans (lived in both rural Wisco and rural indiana for some time each) as long as you believe in God toe the GOP line and don't bring up the ridiculous amount of gas they burn to drive in circles you are ok in their book.
      
      2) yeah, an asshat with biased stereotypical offensive generalizations (see 1)
      
      3) yeah
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2011 @ 2:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: maybe it is time for Danica Patrick to drop GoDaddy as her racing sponsor
        The bulk of hardcore NASCAR fans actually tend to live in the South. Where NASCAR has its roots in moonshinin'.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
average_joe (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 7:43am

Snorezville on the GoDaddy story. It's funny to watch how excited you all got about it all though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- crade (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 7:51am
  
  Re:
  ? It was exciting. It's nice to see that the popular vote still has some influence at least even if it doesn't influence the government anymore. This should be about the expected result since Godaddy semi-caved, the boycott semi-happened.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2011 @ 2:51pm
    
    Re: Re:
    They didn't really lose that many more domains than they usually do in a week. Yes, some, but it won't end up having any real effect on the company.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- E. Zachary Knight (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 8:19am
  
  Re:
  News is news. If you re tired of reading about it, why not just leave. No one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to read Godaddy stories on Techdirt.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2011 @ 9:17am
  
  Re:
  Thank-you, troll. You've made my day, again.
  I confess I mostly come here to read trolls like yours.
  Similarly, I only watch Nascar races to see the crashes.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Devil's Coachman (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 10:35am
  
  Re:
  Heywood Jablome
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2011 @ 7:44am

Wow, Godaddy on a blacklist, how SOPA-esque of you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2011 @ 7:48am
  
  Re:
  If you do not comprehend the difference between a voluntary boycott and a government-mandated blacklist, then you are far too stupid to be on the Internet. Please undertake remedial education sufficient to raise your awareness to at least a minimally acceptable level -- it's getting quite tedious trying to talk down to your abysmal level.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - average_joe (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 7:59am
    
    Re: Re:
    Obviously he was commenting on the similarities, not the differences.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2011 @ 8:23am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      But there are no similarities. One would think that such an elementary point would be so obvious as not to require explanation. Shall I next point out that a Cadillac sedan is not a dolphin, and that navel lint is not the Nobel Peace Prize?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 8:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        But there are similarities between a Cadillac and a dolphin. Both move, both are physical items. This is how average_joe and AC think. They don't care what the actual point is, they just twist everything to fit their needs.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Devil's Coachman (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 8:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Actually, average_joe does not think at all, but you can state with reasonable certainty that this is how his tiny, little, plaqued-up brain works, which does not qualify as thinking, but rather random neuronal firing generating typing movements. A sort of internet epilepsy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        TtfnJohn (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 9:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        (semi-serious) As someone who has a seizure condition I would ask that you not equate us with the non-thinking patterns of Average Joe when he's in troll mode. Even if that's 98% of the time. (end -- semi serious)
        
        It's this from of "thinking" that keeps me wondering how Average Joe ever gets more then a FAIL scrawled in bright red across his assignments. Even by law school standards, if one the often expressed opinion that it's law school people end up with when they fail in every other faculty or major. (I don't really, but there are times I wonder.)
        
        Getting locked into one line of thought and unable or to get out of it is early onset senility, not a seizure disorder. ;-)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - hothmonster, 29 Dec 2011 @ 9:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "navel lint is not the Nobel Peace Prize?"
        
        Fuck! :(
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        TtfnJohn (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 9:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Unless the navel lint is Danica Patrick's!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - mike allen (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 9:25am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Average Joe you are the original moron in a hurry.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2011 @ 10:57am
    
    Re: Re:
    Hmmmmm, OK. Concerted collective action designed to economical harm an entity for supporting a (lawful) political perspective.
    
    But lets not accept a government directed action designed to visit economic harm on foreign criminals.
    
    I think I understand you now. Fucking hypocrites.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Grae (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 11:54am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Setting aside your fallacies of trying to pass opinion and assumptions as fact, are you seriously supporting the position that the free citizens of the United States of America shouldn't have the right to express their Freedom of Speech in the form of a voluntary boycott?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2011 @ 12:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No more than I'd object to the call for a boycott of a businesses because they hold a religious belief I opposed.
        
        This is not simply a matter of individual conscience, it's a coordinated, orchestrated attack to punish a company for its political view.
        
        Funny, I seem to recall the shrieks of indignation when Amex, Visa, Mastercard and Paypal cut off Wikileaks. So which way do you want it? You freeloaders reek of hypocrisy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2011 @ 2:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        They were basically ordered to by the government in order to harm Wikileaks and cause they to close down. Government directed action against the wishes of the people they SERVE should not be tolerated. The People expressing their opinions with their wallets is not the same things, as you are well aware.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2011 @ 2:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        They were basically ordered to by the government in order to harm Wikileaks and cause they to close down. Government directed action against the wishes of the people they SERVE should not be tolerated. The People expressing their opinions with their wallets is not the same things, as you are well aware.
        
        No, they were asked. Just like Mozilla was asked to dump mafiaafire. So did you cut up all of your credit cards douchenozzle?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - TtfnJohn (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 12:48pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I can see you really had to work hard on wording that. But really "economical harm"???? It's economic harm, twit.
      
      And it has nothing whatever do to with offshore sites but with the minor fact of censorship and First Amendment rights.
      
      Go it now? I really, really did try to use short words so you'd understand it. And I even gave you a grammar hint for free!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2011 @ 1:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I can see you really had to work hard on wording that. But really "economical harm"???? It's economic harm, twit.
        
        Actually dipshit, it's "to economically harm" not "to economic harm". Unlike Ars, Techdirt hasn't managed to figure a way to allow one to correct spelling, punctuation, etc.
        
        And it has nothing whatever do to with offshore sites but with the minor fact of censorship and First Amendment rights.
        
        "whatsoever" would probably have been a better word choice. An update for you. The piracy apologists gaining traction have already abandoned this argument. That happened after the Google lawyer refused to answer whether a site displaying child porn was immunized from takedown by also displaying the King James bible. Stick with "breaks the internet". It's working for now. Currently, under existing US law, infringing sites that display substantial infringing content as well as non-infringing content are subject to takedown. SOPA doesn't even do that. There's no seizure with SOPA. Foreign criminals still get a better deal.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2011 @ 2:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        DING! DING! DING! We have a winner. Here is your Daily Asshat Award for bringing up CP completely out of context in and bad analogous form.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2011 @ 3:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        OK shitbag, you answer the question. Is it censorship to takedown a site that primarily displays child porn but also displays the King James bible? FYI, the question is hardly out of context and was asked of the Google lawyer by Rep. Watt at the House judiciary hearing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2011 @ 4:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You get angry very easily. Its a good thing you don't interact with anybody in real life, I'd hate to see one more mass shooting.
        In any event, you should probably attend some anger management classes and a good psychiatrist to hep you with your terrible psychosis.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2011 @ 6:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Anger? Hardly. Scorn? Yeah. I don't hear anyone answering the question. Feel free to take a crack at it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        TtfnJohn (profile), 30 Dec 2011 @ 9:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Idiot
        I'm in the mood for some fun, angry AC.
        
        So, let's answer your question.
        
        Child porn displayed as photographs and video is universally agreed upon to depict a horrid crime that has caused a child irreparable damage and which may cause similar damage to another child as it may well cause a true pedophile to act out with a child. Regardless of the presence of a picture of the the Bible, you go pick your own translation, the pictures are portraying the commission of an actual crime which removed them, even in the United States from the realm of protected speech and the First Amendment.
        
        THAT said, Google, Bing or Yahoo's job is to index the Web. Unless and until the search engine is notified or discovers that the site or pages DO contain that their crawlers would continue to index that or those pages. Once they are, though, they voluntarily stop indexing them. Note carefully that there is no government coercion that they do that. They just do. And yes, very broadly speaking that IS censorship but the bulk of the site you describe (poorly) is dedicated to records of a criminal act there is no blocking or the hint of blocking protected speech.
        
        That said you're still a twit, You just moved on to being a major league one with that.
        
        Further you asked that question of the wrong person when you asked me. So, in the simplest language I can use let me explain why.
        
        I am a survivor of adolescent (child legally) sexual abuse at the hands of my father. Nearly a decade of it. Now let me make something else as clear as I can, jackass, Well over 90% of the sexual abuse of children occurs in family at the hands of a parent or close relative (uncle, aunt) not some pedo in a raincoat flashing outside of a school. The rest of the majority of it happens at the hands of a trusted adult as in coach, teacher, priest, pastor etc.
        
        To add a bit more information to your addled brain let me add that the people I've listed above were, in the vast majority of cases abused themselves by parent or trusted adult. Got it? Clear now? If it isn't then I agree with the AC you answered. You need psychiatric care for that anger of yours that you want to call scorn. At the very least.
        
        The question itself is a trap. It cannot be answered without on one hand, people like you jumping up and down screaming that "hey, you see you agree with censorship" or that "hey, you see you are willing to to index a site that shows the commission of a heinous crime."
        
        Even worse, you equate, as did the person who first asked it, the commission of a life altering crime on a child with the civil matter of possible, let me repeat, possible copyright infringement. Even if it is criminal infringement there is no way to equate the two in terms of impact. Clear? Or are you and the person who originally asked the question so completely heartless and ignorant that you don't see that difference? That you repeat that crap here shows that you're both heartless and ignorant.
        
        To get back to the point of free speech when organizations like the Heritage Foundation (hope I got that right) bring that up and object to SOPA/PIPA on the basis of censorship as well as the dangers they pose to the Web and Internet themselves I'd say that argument is far from over on the basis of their probable slippery slope potentials themselves.
        
        That objection is far from done and far from surrendered to PIPA/SOPA supporters and some of the more extreme trolls and twerps like you. You're beneath contempt, beneath scorn.
        
        You wanted an answer, there it is. There is a massive difference between the question you ask and copyright infringement. One MAY lose someone some money. The other robs the victim of a life they may have had or life itself as more than half of sexual abuse victims will commit suicide before they're 25. How dare you.
        
        You're worse than my father was.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 30 Dec 2011 @ 9:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Idiot
        Dramatic much?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        TtfnJohn (profile), 30 Dec 2011 @ 8:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Idiot
        No drama at all Joe.
        
        Truth.
        
        If you don't like it don't read it. He's still a twit. You don't need to lower yourself to that level. We disagree on lots of things but you're far better than that.
        
        If you expect me to answer that question dispassionately you're very, very wrong.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- E. Zachary Knight (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 8:13am
  
  Re:
  Wait... Are you saying that SOPA is bad as it will do harm to legitimate businesses by essentially creating a blacklist?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2011 @ 7:54am

This is modern business. There's virtually no scandal that can't be fixed with a well placed advertisement. The people are that stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 9:57am
  
  Re:
  The saying "The internet never forgets" comes to mind. Slowly things build up, with each scandal adding a black mark to that permanent record your elementary school teacher told you about. In the case of GoDaddy they have a history of scummy behavior, eventually no amount of "well placed advertisement"s will fix that. Their own actions will have ruined their reputation and doomed them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Violated (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 7:58am

GoDaddy GoBadly
I am only happy that the GoDaddy boycott worked and they have now removed their name from SOPA and PIPA support.

I have also wondered if the boycott should now cease or continue and my conclusion is that it should continue. You should remember what their CEO said in that they are quite happy to support SOPA if the market did.

Clearly our best option is to cause GoDaddy so much pain that they never again dare support such a shit law. They are an Internet company and they should never have welcomed such Internet damage and censorship. They should have realised all the other experts who fled or were banned that something was seriously wrong. And they should have changed their mind before we forced them to.

So there you go. My domains are now at NameCheap and you can do whatever you want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kevin H (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 7:58am

I moved mine. That is all I can do. Its up the others to make their call. Laziness should not play into something like this. If we want to prove to people that we are serious about or position we HAVE to follow through with the threat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 8:29am
  
  Re:
  "Laziness should not play into something like this"
  
  I actually tried to move my domain to NameCheap, but GoDaddy denied the transfer and I don't know why.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jerome, 29 Dec 2011 @ 8:54am
    
    Re: Re:
    Namecheap.com has step by step instructions. Unlock, get code, cancel auto renew, turn off privacy.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - TtfnJohn (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 9:34am
    
    Re: Re:
    Backed up paperwork?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
mattarse (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 8:09am

I wonder how many of those new domains are people who never had a godaddy domain and are registering to be part of the boycott?

I thought about it....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- E. Zachary Knight (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 8:15am
  
  Re:
  You have to pay money to Godaddy in order to have a domain with them. It would be a real bad idea to register a domain just to transfer it away. The idea is to deny them future revenue not to give them money now.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 8:16am

I have moved all my four domains from Godaddy. It wasn't much, but it was worth it to transfer them. I have been wanting to do so even before it decided to support censoring the internet through SOPA.

Their half hearted "retraction" of that support didn't do anything to change my resolve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scooters (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 8:29am

I dare say, GoDaddy, if the company wants my account back, it's going to take so much more than a nude (not-that-pretty) Danica to get it.

For starters: Mike Masnick in the nude.

I'm not attracted to men, but considering what he'd charge GoDaddy to be in the ad, I'd say that would be worthy of restoring my account (and domain) as "payment made".

Well, GoDaddy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 10:00am
  
  Re:
  If it happens, please never post a link to that picture ...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Lord Binky, 29 Dec 2011 @ 10:17am
    
    Re: Re:
    And so the mikerolling begins...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- harbingerofdoom (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 10:11am
  
  Re:
  even before all this, for godaddy to get my business it would have required an equally nude danika patrick sans the sign live and in person.
  
  then i *might* think about using godaddy.
  
  they're awful to begin with.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2011 @ 11:09am
  
  Re:
  For starters: Mike Masnick in the nude.
  
  I'm not attracted to men....
  
  Sure you're not. Since it's unlikely to happen any time soon, you can fulfill your fantasies about Masnick at this site that I generously Googles for you. Happy holidays perv:
  
  chubby-men-naked.com
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Grae (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 12:01pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "perv", eh? It really speaks volumes about you that you'd take a joke about Mike posing nude in a GoDaddy ad and turn it into "I searched for naked men on the internet for you! Because you clearly like men!" I think someone's projecting here...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2011 @ 12:38pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "perv", eh? It really speaks volumes about you that you'd take a joke about Mike posing nude in a GoDaddy ad and turn it into "I searched for naked men on the internet for you! Because you clearly like men!" I think someone's projecting here...
      
      Just having a little fun at Scooter's (and apparently your) expense. Your fit of pique does little to dispel the stereotypes.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Robert Shaver, 29 Dec 2011 @ 8:39am

Yesterday I registered ...
Yesterday I registered a new domain name for a client. She had searched, the day before, for her-name.com on GoDaddy, which reported it was available. Yesterday using hover.com it was no longer available.

I had heard that it is common practice for a domain registrars to put a 30-day hold on any domain names that you search for on their site if you don't buy it right then. It costs them nothing but prevents you from buying it elsewhere.

We went back to GoDaddy and did another search. The offered to charge us $21 to put it on back-order. When it comes available we would be permitted to participate in an auction for it.

In the end my client bought her-name.net from Hover.

But the moral of the story is to never search for available domain names on registrar's web sites unless you intend to buy it right then. Perhaps there is an independent whois to use ... I don't know about that.

Perhaps one of the readers here might know more about this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2011 @ 9:02am
  
  Re: Yesterday I registered ...
  The best thing to do is use a public whois. There aremany public whois servers that won't lock your name up.
  
  On a *nix system, you can usually do a whois from the command line.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bobob, 29 Dec 2011 @ 9:31am

I gots my AOL and my Godaddy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
akp (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 9:42am

The reason...
Transfers out of GoDaddy are down because they're now requiring *written* authorization of transfers. That has slowed the exodus, (and I hope everyone has reported it to ICANN) but I doubt it will stop everyone in the long run.

In addition, there are tons of people (like me) who's domains aren't even eligible for transfer for a month or two. As soon as I'm able, I'm still transferring away.

GoDaddy is artificially slowing transfers out, causing their numbers to look better. Time will tell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2011 @ 10:06am
  
  Re: The reason...
  Can you provide a pointer to a (linkable) source for the statement that GoDaddy is now requiring written authorization for transfers?
  
  It wouldn't surprise: GoDaddy is pure sleaze, top-to-bottom, so this would be perfectly consistent with everything they've ever done. But just because it fits their established behavior pattern doesn't mean it's true, so I'd like to see this confirmed.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jay (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 10:30am
    
    Re: Re: The reason...
    Namecheap says they were hampering the process:
    
    Link
    
    Link
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2011 @ 11:15am
      
      Re: Re: Re: The reason...
      Yes, I saw that report (and resolution) from namecheap earlier in the week. But that appears to be related to an automated system which was returning incomplete information. This sounds like something different. So I'm curious to know where this is coming from.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2011 @ 10:09am

I transferred today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lord Binky, 29 Dec 2011 @ 10:21am

Advertising is still expensive. If people dropping GoDaddy is forcing GoDaddy to step up advertisements to make up the lost domains numbers, then it sounds like it is costing GoDaddy alot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
couchpotatogal, 29 Dec 2011 @ 10:58am

The funny thing is...
...I predict that most who transfer away will eventually transfer back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Grae (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 12:07pm
  
  Re: The funny thing is...
  You use of factual evidence and clearly cited source information has convinced me of your flawless argument.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TtfnJohn (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 12:56pm
  
  Re: The funny thing is...
  You are truly demented, right?
  
  Once someone gets a taste of a REAL hosting company they'll never go back to GoDaddy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Regina, 29 Dec 2011 @ 11:36am

Domains will be moved
I have a bunch of domains too and will be moving them off of GoDaddy myself. Any idea what would be a good place to transfer them to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Grae (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 12:09pm
  
  Re: Domains will be moved
  See this comment higher up in the thread.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hans, 29 Dec 2011 @ 11:40am

Net plus incoming
I keep seeing reference to the net increase in GoDaddy controlled domains, as if the number of outgoing domains doesn't mean anything. So doesn't it still mean they lost a bunch of business they otherwise would have had?

And one wonders if it's possible for them to fake the appearance of incoming domains, by shuffling domains around from elsewhere...

Clearly, if they're contacting customers to ask them to come back, they're concerned about the loss and are willing to expend resources to recover.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Grae (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 12:15pm

Ultimately even if GoDaddy's domains are increasing, they're trading sustainable, stable accounts for new ones which may or may not be around in a year or so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2011 @ 12:55pm

Godaddy is banking on Americans ADD disorder

and it looks like its working.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
D$, 30 Dec 2011 @ 12:05am

Danica is Niiiice
I like how all we had to do to get Danica to take off her clothes was to threaten to boycot Go Daddy. You know, if we keep this up a little more vigorously, I bet we can get her to do donkey porn in a Super Bowl commercial next year. Who's with me!?!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kamereon, 30 Dec 2011 @ 2:21am

Naked
Alright, I haven't even read the story, but if you drag me here saying naked Danica and then don't provide any pictures - well, I call bull$#!^.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Dec 2011 @ 5:37am

I think all women should protest against go daddy for sexual exploitation of women. Danica Patrick is a disgrace to all business women with talent. Apparently she doesn't have enough faith or self respect to let her track record be her legacy. Fluff is just fluff. She should just go hang out at the Mustang Ranch to make a buck instead of making all women look like sex objects.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Christopher Bingham (profile), 30 Dec 2011 @ 6:53am

EFF Donations above $61k at Namecheap this morning
I moved my nine domain names last night to Namecheap at about 7pm, when the number was at around $21k. This morning, after doing the last confirmation link, the number was over $61k.

Moving to namecheap was really easy, their registration process and website is FAR easier to use, without the aggressive and slightly confusing ad gauntlet you have to go through with Godaddy and by purchasing last night, I donated $9 to EFF. Namecheap also adds your remaining time with Godaddy to your renewal time - so there is no $$ loss.

At around $10 a name, it appears pretty clear that at the very least, the boycott cost Godaddy around $600k in one day. Maybe that's chicken feed, but it would get my attention. Because it's not just this year - it's every year thereafter. It's a small pain to move my registration, but it's a pain, so unless you do something to really make me want to move, I'll probably stick with Namecheap for years to come.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Dec 2011 @ 7:00am

To late now GoDaddy. Your betrayal to former customers since 2010 will not be forgotten. JP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
backtoblack, 30 Dec 2011 @ 9:35am

Like the ads, but my domains are leaving
I think the ads are cute, amusing, etc... and we all know SEX SELLS,period.

I've seen tons of posts about degrading, yadda yadda yadda...

WHAT EVER!

These women signed up, knew what they were going to do, and got PAID. So if they are fine with it to get paid, why impose YOUR MORALITY on MY MORALITY or LACK THEREOF. Trust me these ads are TAME compared to those in most of the EU, UK, and Japan. TAME! G rated!

Oh.. its because its women, its wrong, but if it was Regina Parsons and there were men in the ads, its ok? Right? Spare me! While those ads would be repulsive to ad viewers (no I didn't say they should not produce air them, if they think they won't waste their ad $$, but I would clikc away!), and hence regardless of who male/female owns the company you won't see them.

BUT... in re SOPA... Your lips are moving godaddy, your LYING! Just like lawyers and salesmen/women, LIARS ONE AND ALL.

Sorry I am voting with my domains, and the PR Blitz, and other items are just lip service to quell the march...

Nope, my domains are leaving, no I don't have a bunch, probably won't notice, so be it... but I am not going to stay someplace which is just paying me lip service.

As for the ads, they are like some other companies, I like the ads but would never purchase the product (and I had my domains at godaddy long before the ads), example: crapple. idiot pod|phone|other device brings new music to light that I wouldn't know about where I immediately go to download a nice MP3, not from idiotunes and not used on an idiotdevice.

---
1311393600 - Back to Black...Blaaack....Blaaaack....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]