So after five plus years of being a client, a private company will be deciding whether I'm worthy of their service or not based on whether I got my teeth kicked in during the protest actions for the past few days?
Should I e-mail some photos of my bruises left by police batons on my ribs? Or maybe I should kneel?
This is humiliating, and you know it. You're just making more problems and creating more danger for absolutely innocent people, just in spite.
This is the essence of cancel culture, now on a national level.
> This is the essence of cancel culture, now on a national level.
We need to lose that term. It's not cancel culture to decide who you do and don't want to associate with, or do business with. That's freedom. The people being rejected only think their own freedom matters. Unless they are a protected class, that simply isn't true.
>And if the west would send tanks to Ukraine it'd be WW3
that tired misconception should be dropped. West can send any weapons to Ukraine, and volunteers from West, trained tank drivers and pilots, can drive those Abrams tanks and fly those F-16 planes. Russia and China has been doing "volunteer" trick just fine.
World needs to start to learn to deal with such situations. China/Taiwan is coming and total sanctions regime wouldn't be possible with China.
It would be much preferable for Russians as a whole for the West to send tanks to Ukraine to engage the invading troops. And no, it wouldn't automatically be WW3, either. It would be if the tanks crossed the Russian border, but they don't have to do so to break the invasion.
Putin called for the nukes to be put on High Alert before there was any threat of direct NATO action (and there is still no talk of any). What is the next step? "Higher" alert?
MORE direct combattants, _especially_ from other superpowers, is the last thing that we need. Adding additional powerderkegs to the existing fire does nothing to stop it.
To extend on your fire analogy, it's not just a fire, it's arson - and the arsonist is still there, sprinkling gas around and throwing matches. You can't extinguish the fire without dealing with the arsonist.
As for Putin, he's basically a gopnik. There's a Russian word for what these guys do - "быковать", literally "bulling", but it's basically a display of aggression to establish oneself higher in the hierarchy and to make the victim afraid to fight back. If you acquiesce to gopnik's demands, he will come up with more, until the point where he "justifiably" takes away your phone and wallet.
I hate to break it to you, but Russia started a war! Russia, the place where Russian citizens live, protected by an army of Russians. Russia is not some ephemeral theoretical quantity, it's a state governing its people with their consent. The preferences of their citizens are not a priority and, if you feel that consent has vanished, the only one who can do anything about it is you.
I do get the idea of sanctions -- I'm legally prevented by publicly commenting on this due to some Russian law -- but I understand if a foreign business body has to terminate its business relations with a Russian one.
But kicking out paid customers just based on their nationality, knowing that they have no direct control over situation, and still blaming them for it? This is f**d up, I'm sorry.
Please don't cross into personal attack. I know you're under pressure, and other people are in terrible situations. We can't allow HN users to start taking that out on each other.
It's a shitty enough situation that some of those things would seem to be necessary in order to persuade your service provider to keep service up. Automatically billing your credit card for a few years doesn't really say as much.
It's not even spite. Spite at least has some emotion in it. This is lazy virtue signaling of the kind that sounds impressive when you've been bought enough drinks to forego further explanation of who this is actually helping.
Independent of my feelings on this - how is doing exactly what the contract states reneging?
> Namecheap expressly reserves the right to deny, cancel, terminate, suspend, lock, or modify access to (or control of) any account or any Services (including the right to cancel or transfer any domain name registration) for any reason (as determined by Namecheap in its sole and absolute discretion), including but not limited to the following: <SNIP MORE OF THE SAME>
Those terms of service documents that no one reads are part of, if not all the of the contract. Most service providers have the same (effectively anyway) clause in them. They also have clauses that allow them to modify their terms of service any way they want.
Unless someone has a different, specifically negotiated contract with the company that states otherwise - this is not a violation rightly or wrongly. This is why a lot of B2B involves contract negotiation that takes a long time, those businesses can't tolerate the instability of a contract that can be terminated or changed on a whim.
I'm aware that almost every registrar has similar terms. However, according to ICANN's registrant benefits and responsibilities page, a registrar can't just take someone's money away. To quote Domain Name Registrants' Rights, Paragraph 3
"You [Domain Name Registrant] shall not be subject to false advertising or deceptive practices by your Registrar or though any proxy or privacy services made available by your Registrar. This includes deceptive notices, hidden fees, and any practices that are illegal under the consumer protection law of your residence"
IANAL, but I'm quite sure that failure to render services for payment counts as an illegal action under consumer protection laws in Russia and elsewhere.
The first amendment makes speech protected from state action. The government of the United States of America is bound by law to not suppress the political speech of its citizens. I don't think it is relevant to international boycotts, in letter or in spirit.
The point is that Namecheap parades itself as a defender of the First Amendment, while simultaneously robbing people of a vehicle of self-expression that these people have paid for. I know the language of the First Amendment doesn't prohibit Namecheap from saying the will no longer initiate or do any business with Russians. However, it's hypocritical all the same when they criticize the similar actions being taken by the US government.
>I don't think it is relevant to international boycotts, in letter or in spirit
Of course the First Amendment is relevant to international boycotts. How else would Namecheap half-assingly justifying its premature pullout? If they don't want to renew those domains after a year is up, I wouldn't have a problem, but that's not the case.
My issue is not Namecheap's boycott in and of itself, but the process of damning a host of individuals on the barest of relations to the Russian government while having the gall to take their money and run away.
> The point is that Namecheap parades itself as a defender of the First Amendment, while simultaneously robbing people of a vehicle of self-expression that they have paid for.
I think this is conflating two issues that are altogether very different. In the first, Name cheap was pro section 230 protection, because without it they believed that they would have no choice but to censor people due to the potential for legal liabilities incurred without those protections. They were not advocating for the right of people to not be deplatformed due to their speech. And that isn't even what is happening here, namecheap is deciding to boycott Russia because of the actions of the Russian government, not the speech of the individual Russians. The first amendment in spirit is about protecting citizens from the state and absolutely does not mandate who you do business with and why. There are other laws for protected classes in the US but the whole issue of US law just seems absolutely disjointed in my mind.
> Of course the First Amendment is relevant to international boycotts. How else would Namecheap half-assingly justifying its premature pullout?
I don't follow at all, sorry. They make no reference to the first amendment, they simply believe it is not in their best interests to do business with Russian citizens at this time because of the actions of the Russian government. This kind of boycott strategy happens all the time.
As I've said before, this is about Namecheap's self-portrayed values. It defends its Section 230 protection on the premise of protecting its and others' rights to speak freely. Given today's circumstances, it seems that reasoning is false.
To quote Namecheap:
"As citizens ourselves, we embrace the joy of hearing all voices. The power to regulate or restrict speech or expression concentrated in the hands of only a few big tech companies is not how we want those decisions made for us."
And what has it done today? It's nakedly hypocritical that Namecheap engages in those same restrictions against its own customers.
If they just said "We're a business for free speech when said speech is convenient to our interests. Take it or leave it", that wouldn't be so much of an issue.
> the actions of the Russian government, not the speech of the individual Russians
> they simply believe it is not in their best interests to do business with Russian citizens at this time because of the actions of the Russian government. This kind of boycott strategy happens all the time.
Then why dissociate on the basis of TLDs of which many Americans may be domain holders? Or why is it that individual Russians citizens are having their websites taken down for the actions of their government? Namecheap is not being selective or proportionate.
I think you really have to stretch the "we enjoy hearing all voices" line to get it to read "we should do business with a regime threatening the world with nuclear war."
I don't agree that closing up shop in a neighborhood after someone there threatens you with violence, is a free speech issue, even if the shop was selling posterboard and markers you could use for signs to exercise free speech.
> Then why dissociate on the basis of TLDs of which many Americans may be domain holders? Or why is it that individual Russians citizens are having their websites taken down for the actions of their government? Namecheap is not being selective or proportionate.
I agree this is fair criticism. I don't know enough about their business to know if there is a better way they could be selective.
An obsession with the right to free speech over all other rights is invoking Poe's law if it's now being advocated for in the case of a warmongering adversarial state. While it's not the aim of this move, during every war, communications of the enemy are hindered. The First Amendment would never have been written if the authors valued the rights of British Soldiers as much as their own.
The Russian government is not marching on Ukraine. There are no bureaucrats and politicians driving tanks. Russia's army is. And it's Russia's people who give power to the state to direct them. It would be absurd for an uncaring Russian individual to complain about essentially paltry financial or logistical issues as while being complicit in the erosion of Ukranian individuals' right to life.
>An obsession with the right to free speech over all other rights is invoking Poe's law if it's now being advocated for in the case of a warmongering adversarial state.
Should US citizens have been cut off from registrar providers in 2003 because of the war in Iraq? Let's be consistent here. If you think that a state being an adversarial warmonger is the requirement to deny it's people a service they paid for, even the one's who never wanted a war, then every person on the planet is liable by proxy of their current or previous governments.
>While it's not the aim of this move, during every war, communications of the enemy are hindered.
By an army against another army, not a private organization against civilians. Namecheap is not a military or paramilitary organization. Namecheap is a private business, and is still subject to US laws as a private business. Hindering communications of an "enemy" isn't a justification for outright financial fraud.
>The First Amendment would never have been written if the authors valued the rights of British Soldiers as much as their own.
I'm not able to follow what this is supposed to mean. British soldiers at the direction of the Crown violated the rights of empire's own subjects under the Coercive Acts and initiated violence in Concord & Lexington. The soldiers made their bed. The Bill of Rights were not ratified until until 1791, well after the war.
>The Russian government is not marching on Ukraine. There are no bureaucrats and politicians driving tanks. Russia's army is.
Who's directing the army? Who's the one in control of those nuclear warheads being brought out. The civilians aren't the one's driving BMPs or flying MI-8s. Most if pressed, couldn't even point to Kyiv on a map. I don't know if you're either absolving Putin of his actions as though he doesn't have free will or claiming everyone in Russia is as guilty as he is for being Russian, but this is a terrible argument.
>And it's Russia's people who give power to the state to direct them.
This is a false premise. It's almost laughable. You're conflating American jurisprudence with the politics of the Kremlin. In case you haven't noticed, the Russian government is not a government by the people or for the people.
>It would be absurd for an uncaring Russian individual to complain about essentially paltry financial or logistical issues as while being complicit in the erosion of Ukranian individuals' right to life.
In short: "Ukrainians have it worse, so Russian civilians should accept what's doled out to them". If you can think there can only be one victim at any one time, then I've got news for you.
I dunno, did you try to get a registrar from a provider in Iraq? I don't think you would have much luck.
>This is a false premise. It's almost laughable. You're conflating American jurisprudence with the politics of the Kremlin. In case you haven't noticed, the Russian government is not a government by the people or for the people.
They have far more influence than the people of Ukraine.
>In short: "Ukrainians have it worse, so Russian civilians should accept what's doled out to them". If you can think there can only be one victim at any one time, then I've got news for you.
If you entered into an agreement to provide service (eg. provide domain registration for one year), and one side unilaterally terminates the relationship, that sounds pretty close to reneging. In addition, the CEO have promised refunds for some services, but not domain registrations. In that case you quite literally paid for one year of service, and are not getting that.
In this case, the two are not mutually exclusive. Every Russian domain purchaser and every individual with a domain under the aforementioned TLDs that had, even as recently as yesterday, purchased a 1-year registration from Namecheap is now being provided a week of service at best. You tell me how that's not reneging.
I don't think it's possible for a private company to implement a process that can provide "anti-regime exceptions" though. Would you request evidence of anti-regime activity?
> Is there any way I can still keep domains at Namecheap?
Use a Russian registrar. Or leave Russia. This sucks. War sucks. But I don’t see how anyone can continue doing business in Russia while maintaining a clean conscience.
OK. What should I do if I don't fall under a refugee description, don't have any immediate family in the EU, my diploma means nothing to EU, and have no bag of gold to immigrate illegaly?
This is me, plain and simple. I would like to immigrate, but I have no legal grounds.
Serious question, no gimmicks or laughs: should I die or be cancelled by the rest of the world?
> should I die or be cancelled by the rest of the world?
You should not die. But you don’t have an inaliable right to thrive in your country.
Again, not trying to be a dick. War sucks. I am truly sorry you’re hurting. And I am not suggesting it’s your duty to join a resistance movement or whatever. But these are considerations and costs we must all weigh when our governments do horrible things. Most of the time, sadly, the world won’t care. We (America) have war criminals who should be in jail. But occasionally, the world gets horrified and rises to the occasion. Even that occasional threat is better than nothing.
This is a nice sentiment, but in the meantime, we're getting F'd for the actions we tried to stop. We failed, but we did the best we could, without resorting to violence.
I agree, this is not enough. But this is by no means an excuse to cancel an entire nation.
Agreed, but it beats having your country invaded, your cities shelled and starved. That's what is in the balance, compared to that you have a luxury situation.
That's the point. I'm not the one shelling another one's country, even so -- I'm doing everything in my power to prevent it. Instead, commercial service decides to capitalize their PR value on it, and decides to cause even more harm than already have been caused.
No, this is not about PR, this is about their employees. This isn't a press release, it was a message to a customer.
What bugs me is that they did not make a distinction between private individuals and corporations, if I were in their position I would have let the private individuals go, they are Russians, not Russia.
Even so: every Russian citizen and every Russian company that is currently relying on businesses in the West such as Amazon, Google, Microsoft and so on should expect those services to be cut off at some point in the near future.
A lot of sites (with domains in non-RU tld) that coordinate, help, inform people about what's really going on are under great pressure from Putin's regime. Sites are getting blocked, people are getting fined and jailed.
Now you are joining this effort on behalf of Putin. Good job, товарищ! Please report to Russian embassy to get your 30 silver pieces.
The middle ground is an infinitesimal wide line between Russia and Ukraine called 'the border', and more accurately the line is right now around Russia, Belarus and Chechnya soon to follow. If you are on the other side of that line then you will suffer economically, but not nearly as much as when you are inside Ukraine where you could very well lose your life.
If you're an economic actor in Russia & aren't actively aiming to end the current regime, you are the target. It's not a coincidence. Invoking Orwellian analogies stops making sense when it's a war.
you have to think twice and careful before getting involved in political ideas hitting people like me even not Russian. If you want a war with me, I'm ready, it's exactly what you did, you are provoking ordinary people againt you.
