Just another example of the .org domain being eroded - they’re not an NGO, not a non-profit - they’re a for-profit limited company, and therefore shouldn’t be using a .org.
Eh? The Brexit Party Ltd is a limited company, not a political party. They are acting like a political party, but they are a limited company, regardless. See, for instance, the fact that Farage is their immutable leader - he himself has explicitly stated that there will be no leadership contests within the party, as it is not a party, and he is the Person with Significant Control, with a 60% shareholding, with four anonymous individuals or organisations holding the remaining 40%.
It is absolutely a for-profit.
They have no party members, other than the three members of the Ltd co - their supporters are merely subscribers. They have no voting power, unlike in political parties.
Here’s their entry in companies house, which makes this explicit - you’ll find no such entry for, say, the Conservative and Unionist Party, or the Labour Party, or the Liberal Democrats, as they are political parties, not companies.
So, no, they shouldn’t be a .org, it’s misleading, just as it has evidently mislead you.
Frankly, I find it extremely worrying that a private company stands to potentially govern. Will their accountability lie with the public, or their shareholders?
If the domain was bought after the brexit party was founded - I wonder if its ownership can be claimed by the brexit party. At least with EU domain (and domains of individual countries under EU law) this falls under this case. Meaning that if you claim domain just to sell it for profits and cannot prove you have other purpose - its ownership will be transferred to the "name owners".
I doubt that Farage would care about buying such a domain given that he knows that his party only exists due to the UK's reluctance to deliver Brexit.
He even said in a ITV interview that he would have to 'rebrand' his party after Brexit happens. So I find that it is unlikely that he would care about buying this domain especially a .com one.
With all due respect; from HN's posting guidelines..
>Stories on HN don't have to be about hacking, because good hackers aren't only interested in hacking, but they do have to be deeply interesting.
Which is fair enough. Also;
> What does "deeply interesting" mean? It means stuff that teaches you about the world. A story about a robbery, for example, would probably not be deeply interesting. But if this robbery was a sign of some bigger, underlying trend, perhaps it could be.
>The worst thing to post or upvote is something that's intensely but shallowly interesting: gossip about famous people, funny or cute pictures or videos, partisan political articles, etc.
IMO this posted 'article' goes against the guidelines. It is not 'deeply interesting', teaches us nothing about the world, and is verging on politically partisan (yes let's have a chuckle at the brexit party because someone bought a domain name - teehee!)
I mean, what's the news here? Someone bought a domain name. Which just happens to be a domain name the brexit party /might/ have been interested in but probably not because it's a .com
Wouldn't cyber squatting laws just hand over the domain to their party if asked? They are even being asked for money, even if only in jest, which strengthens their case.
18 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 71.2 ms ] threadIt’s a non for profit organization.
It’s not a business or a public company so .com doesn’t apply, it’s not an ISP or a company that provides networking services so .net doesn’t apply.
It’s not a military organization, educational institution or a government agency so .mil, .edu and .gov are not applicable.
Like it or not political parties was exactly the intended target for a .org domain registration.
It is absolutely a for-profit.
They have no party members, other than the three members of the Ltd co - their supporters are merely subscribers. They have no voting power, unlike in political parties.
Here’s their entry in companies house, which makes this explicit - you’ll find no such entry for, say, the Conservative and Unionist Party, or the Labour Party, or the Liberal Democrats, as they are political parties, not companies.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/11694875/officers
So, no, they shouldn’t be a .org, it’s misleading, just as it has evidently mislead you.
Frankly, I find it extremely worrying that a private company stands to potentially govern. Will their accountability lie with the public, or their shareholders?
The Brexit party already have the .org and so have a primary domain already, they don’t need or require the .com.
But I think Led By Donkeys is clear political satire (even if they have a political goal), and they’re not here to make a quick buck.
He even said in a ITV interview that he would have to 'rebrand' his party after Brexit happens. So I find that it is unlikely that he would care about buying this domain especially a .com one.
Truly "hacker" new s
>Stories on HN don't have to be about hacking, because good hackers aren't only interested in hacking, but they do have to be deeply interesting.
Which is fair enough. Also;
> What does "deeply interesting" mean? It means stuff that teaches you about the world. A story about a robbery, for example, would probably not be deeply interesting. But if this robbery was a sign of some bigger, underlying trend, perhaps it could be.
>The worst thing to post or upvote is something that's intensely but shallowly interesting: gossip about famous people, funny or cute pictures or videos, partisan political articles, etc.
IMO this posted 'article' goes against the guidelines. It is not 'deeply interesting', teaches us nothing about the world, and is verging on politically partisan (yes let's have a chuckle at the brexit party because someone bought a domain name - teehee!)
I mean, what's the news here? Someone bought a domain name. Which just happens to be a domain name the brexit party /might/ have been interested in but probably not because it's a .com
Yet here we are, with it being upvoted. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯