[anonsivalley652]

The term "domain squatting" is a dishonest pejorative; they're not squatting if they're paying for it, like everyone else. In most countries, people are free to buy houses and then not occupy them. Telling other people what they can or can't do with their property isn't democratic, it's fascist. If you can offer someone enough money to sell you an underutilized domain, that's fine too; if they ignore you, that's their prerogative also. People are free to buy as many properties as they can afford; it's called freedom. Try it sometime. :)

[jasonjayr]

While it's true that in many countries it's legal to buy houses and not occupy them, the locals tend to look unfavorably upon this practice, and some municipalities will charge additional taxes for unoccupied properties.

Squatting domain names is the same deal.

[anonsivalley652]

That's irrelevant. Local control doesn't apply to a global, shared resource. And, that mismatched metaphor describes infringement on individual property rights because you can't have it both ways.

There can be only one internet namespace if it's to operate correctly, and it can't be controlled by corporations or greedy individuals who think they should get things other people had, and paid for, before them.

If you want a freedom, you must give everyone the same freedom, even if they misuse it. That's the definition of a free society. An unfree society digs into peoples lives and makes value judgements about them and tries to control them to their views.

[jasonjayr]

It becomes a "tragedy of the commons" situation unless there is some regulation of this one shared namespace. Even the FCC has "use it or lose it" rules in place for the limited wireless spectrum.

I mean, isn't that what's happening with property in real life? The ones that can afford to do so keep buying it up, and renting it out, and perpetuating the cycle of inequity?

[buboard]

There is no tragedy of the commons here, its the opposite, people create value on previously worthless dns-land. There is no shortage of TLDs, instead an infinite supply, so its not a zero sum game. Of course demand and supply applies

Housing and spectrum are inherently limited so it makes sense to have ‘homesteading’ rules, especially when they are not even rented out

[jasonjayr]

There really isn't an infinite supply though. There are desirable properties of a domain, including memorability (length of domain, typability, common words).

Sure, something like "eebe8X.com" is usable, but it's not very desirable.

[buboard]

the supply is infinite by design, but that doesn't mean that all supply is equal

[zchrykng]

No one is arguing that it is illegal (at least at the moment), but it is a really shitty thing to do. As anyone with even a semi-common last name, it is basically impossible to find a TLD using it. Not because people are using them for anything, but because someone decided that they could extort money from people by registering it and just sitting on it until someone is crazy enough to pay the ransom.

[kortilla]

Someone else has a personal page with my last name under .com. Squatter or not, I don’t get to use it. I don’t see how squatters make it any different.

[bobbydroptables]

>I don’t see how squatters make it any different.

Because one person is using it for it's legitimate intended purpose and one person is using it as a speculator (and blocking legitimate use without paying a toll).

Should someone be able to buy all existing insulin and then charge a toll to use it at a price closer to it's value to the consumer (multiples of the current price)?

[ryanlol]

Whats legitimate use?

If I owned “doctor.com” or “lawyer.com” and used that for my unrelated low effort personal website, would that be better for everyone than a domain squatter who’s willing to sell the domain to someone who’s actually going to do something useful with it? I don’t think so.