4 years ago, Archive Team backed up "nearly all" of Vidme (according to Jason Scott). It was uploaded to the Internet Archive here <a href="https://archive.org/details/archiveteam_vidme" rel="nofollow">https://archive.org/details/archiveteam_vidme</a> so you can fix your vid.me URLs by pointing them to the Archive.<p>(And you can help keep them there, too <a href="https://archive.org/donate" rel="nofollow">https://archive.org/donate</a> But honestly, using the Archive more keeps the bigger donors involved, so don't feel guilty or anything. Just use the Archive!)
We can't and shouldn't expect people to keep their old domains forever. We need a way for pages to be signed and hyperlinks to enforce authorship. When we link to stuff, we should have a way to say whose stuff we're linking to. It's no different from installing signed software and using trusted repositories.<p>This is one of the reasons I created a proof-of-concept web extension that verifies links and pages using PGP. On a mismatch, it flags the page and offers a web archive link instead.<p><a href="https://webverify.jahed.dev/" rel="nofollow">https://webverify.jahed.dev/</a><p>It was pretty fun to make, but currently due to performance, Web Extensions API doesn't provide the features to do this perfectly. Firefox provides just about enough additional APIs to hack it together.
One of the services I've sold more than once was to handle the "offlining" of a domain. Basically provide a 307/404/410 service and make sure it works for a long time before the name gets released. Basically to help clean up on the way out.
Very amusing but I take issue with the article's claim that "Here’s (yet another) argument against using third-party embeds" - this might be an oversimpified perspective when it's actually a good argument to use subresource integrity (essentially cryptographic pinning of third party embedded content). I am unsure if this extends to every kind of resource that you could have in a web page, (ideally it should) but I could imagine a JS shim being used to cover some edge cases.
I'd get it if it was Goatse, but this is just regular porn. If they simply wanted to earn money from ads, serving something more milquetoast would make more sense, because now there's a rush to remove old embeds.<p>Why?!
Or 3rd party JS libraries. instead of <a href="https://code.jquery.com/" rel="nofollow">https://code.jquery.com/</a>, your admin 'accidentally' added <a href="https://code.jqeury.com/" rel="nofollow">https://code.jqeury.com/</a> which embeds a crypto miner
I use Domainy<p><a href="https://www.domainy.io" rel="nofollow">https://www.domainy.io</a><p>to monitor interesting domains being expired and to also find interesting domains that are available.<p>twitter.accountant? what about twitter.beauty?<p>Domains are not exactly available when they expire, but this helps me to check if any of them become available.
> <i>Here’s (yet another) argument against using third-party embeds on your respectable website</i><p>Well, it's an argument against using embeds without having any way to validate their authenticity.<p>This is analogous to having a software distro (e.g. package manager) which downloads upstream tarballs or git repos without checking any hashes.<p>Is there a solution for this? Say you want to embed a video from some third party sites; what tools are there for ensuring that the embedding will somehow lapse if the video at that URL has been replaced or altered?<p>Ideally, you'd be notified if that happened. While not showing porn is good, but videos not working is bad. You can't be checking an entire site all the time for non-working external content.
The weird thing about this to me is, the company or person who scooped up the domain... in order to get their plan working so quickly, wouldn't they have had to set up a site perfectly beforehand so the embeds would work as desired and then just sat there waiting, hoping, ready to hit the button to scoop up the domain at just the right time, praying nobody beat them to it?<p>Isn't that a lot of work for almost no gain?
What's the win for the new owner, do they make money from linking to the porn somehow? Sure it could also be just for lulz but there are many equally or more lulzy possibilities whereas porn often seems to be coupled with economic gain.
The trend toward embeds rather than screenshots or direct copying has long struck me as ill-conceived.<p>At least it's only pr0n. As a vector for malware / spyware injection, this could be even more interesting.<p>Relevant xkcd, of course: <a href="https://xkcd.com/1698/" rel="nofollow">https://xkcd.com/1698/</a><p>h/t Elda King @ Mastodon <a href="https://weirder.earth/@eldaking/106626603001624730" rel="nofollow">https://weirder.earth/@eldaking/106626603001624730</a>
Why isn't this considered criminal vandalism and hacking?
Intent matters.<p>Owning the domain doesn't give them a right to intentionally interfere with the requested content; they should simply decline to serve the expired URLs.
I guess I submitted too early :-) <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27925605" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27925605</a>
Domains are an area where blockchain technology could help a lot.<p>A domain could cost a fixed amount of X per month. So you could pay 100 years upfront and be <i>sure</i> to not lose it in that timeframe.<p>To move a domain,the registrar <i>and</i> the owner could have to sign the move. So it would not be possible anymore to lose a domain due to the regsitrar making a mistake.