| Maybe I missed it, but did someone point to the actual site with "millions of visitors and 5 PETABYTES of traffic per month"? Is that right? Don't want to seem harsh, but I don't care for unqualified rants against a named entity, when the "accuser" doesn't name his own source. And using vague words like "inappropriate/troublesome" seems a bit mysterious. Were they ISIS propaganda posters, nudity of celebs, or penguins making out? Might make a difference. And as others have already stated, it's pretty SOP for hosting and domain companies to have this standard in place. Hate to say it, but it's in the User Agreement. Else, run your own servers and domain name registrar (oh, and also be liable for those same posts possibly). Why we insist on not understanding that DNRs and hosts are, basically, publishers, who have some rights, is beyond me. Let me guess... this guy is upset because he might have not gotten the email within 24 hours (in 2017... yeah, right). Is he off-the-grid hunting sea lions in the north sea? And if his site is so big, he has no one to help him and no backup staff except... only him? This same crowd will balk that FB didn't remove that last murder video in 12.3 seconds, but demand that THEIR host or registrar give them 30 days. Sheesh... internet shenanigans never stop, do they? |
I did not "police" a single one of those domains.
Like I said below, I was NOT using namecheap DNS or hosting.
> And using vague words like "inappropriate/troublesome" seems a bit mysterious. Were they ISIS propaganda posters, nudity of celebs, or penguins making out? Might make a difference.
I don't care how much problematic the images were. 24 hours warning for threatening to suspend a domain is ridiculous.
> Let me guess... this guy is upset because he might have not gotten the email within 24 hours (in 2017... yeah, right).
Yes that is reasonable reason to be upset. I thought the email was spam/phishing at first. The email also could have easily have been deleted by spam filters.