[drx]

> In changing its position, Go Daddy remains steadfast in its promise to support security and stability of the Internet. In an effort to eliminate any confusion about its reversal on SOPA though, Jones has removed blog postings that had outlined areas of the bill Go Daddy did support.

> "Go Daddy has always fought to preserve the intellectual property rights of third parties, and will continue to do so in the future," Jones said.

Translation: we got caught this time, but will not hesitate to do it again.

[sounds]

This is hilarious!

More translations that might make your day:

> In an effort to eliminate any confusion about its reversal on SOPA though, Jones has removed blog postings that had outlined areas of the bill Go Daddy did support.

Translation: we said some pretty stupid things yesterday.

> Go Daddy ... worked with federal lawmakers for months ... legislation first introduced some three years ago ... entire Internet community ... ensure the integrity of the Internet

Translation: we've been neck-deep in this legislation, and will be pushing the next version of this bill too. Seized domains would have been a de facto transfer to Go Daddy.

[draggnar]

Here's another from last night:

> Go Daddy has received some emails that appear to stem from the boycott prompt, but we have not seen any impact to our business. We understand there are many differing opinions on the SOPA regulations

Translation: Screw you guys, wait, what did you say Jimmy Wales?

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/12/godaddy-face...

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/12/godaddy-face...

[Steko]

Go Daddy wants SOPA to pass so bad sometimes they just cold shut down websites whenever big content sends them an email:

http://movies.cosmicbooknews.com/content/michael-bentkover-w...

[RexRollman]

They are simply NOT trustworthy.

[geekam]

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...you can't get fooled again, once you're fooled. ~George W. Bush.

The man said it himself. They are not trustworthy.

[tdfx]

For the sake of completeness: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwxTRNzLZ9M

[masmullin]

Do they actually say that in Tennessee?

[xiaomai]

Texas?

[masmullin]

I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee, but I am not 100% on that, hence the question.

[RobPfeifer]

I've met the CEO a couple of times, and I'd say he basically brags about exploitative they are.

Have to say I'm shocked at how many tech savvy people use them. Didn't realize how convincing Danica Patrick is I guess.

[brudgers]

I don't know how tech saavy I am, but I continue to use them because they provide low cost Windows based hosting which is relatively easy to use. Every time I look for an alternative, a comparable level of services is significantly more expensive at other providers. I wish it weren't the case, but it is.

[BrandonM]

This is the first rational explanation I've seen for this, so I voted it up. I'd be interested in hearing alternative solutions, if only for your sake :).

[vacri]

I don't play around with domain control much, so don't keep myself informed, but if I were to register domains, it doesn't matter how cheap (or free!) GoDaddy was, just having seen their Superbowl ads, they're clearly not a company that intends to be taken seriously.

You can get away with that with beer ads because beer is basically entertainment. But domains are part of business, a core block. You need that to be reliable and serious. Doesn't mean your ads need to be po-faced, but it does mean that you have to exhibit some nod towards indicating you're a professional company. Nice tits are nice tits, but that doesn't make me confident in the technical nous - or perhaps more importantly, intended direction - of an internet company.

[fedxc]

Agree. They changed their mind because they were threaten. It's not an honest communication, they are just trying to avoid losing money/business.

[mavrc]

> In an effort to eliminate any confusion about its reversal on SOPA though, Jones has removed blog postings that had outlined areas of the bill Go Daddy did support.

Somebody read 1984 and rooted for Big Brother.

[nitrogen]

You'd be surprised how willing most people are to just rewrite or delete history as it suits them.

I've heard of guys whose ex-girlfriends tore out and destroyed pages of their diaries related to the guy when they broke up.

People delete their half of conversations on forums, Facebook, etc. when they get proven wrong, so it looks like the other party was just talking to themselves.

Someone once asked me to help them remove someone from a photo (not a family photo, a documentary photo of a community activity). "Why?" "Because he was being annoying!" "But this photo could be printed in the paper. He was there. You can't just rewrite history like that!" "It's my photo! If you won't help me, I'll get someone else to do it."

Rewriting history is the norm. Most people haven't read 1984, and I suspect that many that do, don't get it.

[marshray]

They will think at least twice about it before lending their name to such a thing publicly.

[spooneybarger]

Yes, they can just continue to lend their name to shooting elephants and misogynist ads.

I seriously doubt this is going to have much of an impact on them. So this one particular instance came back to bite them, good to know for them that pissing off techies is bad for business but animal rights people, devout christians and women ( all of whom have complained about various other parts of their business in the past ) don't have any impact on the companies actions.

[freshhawk]

Plus, apparently one blog post is enough to make all the techies back off and forget about it.

Isn't it obvious to everyone that they are still supporting SOPA, but realized that supporting it publically was a bad call?

[slig]

While I agree that their ads sucks, I don't think they're misogynist. Like every ad, they're targeted to a specific audience.

[DilipJ]

most of their ads show some woman exhibiting reluctance to undressing, and then the men around her coercing her to do so anyways. of course they're misogynist.

But of course, you have to understand that it's part of the company's philosophy. This is the same CEO that came out in favor of waterboarding: http://www.metafilter.com/42906/Dear-Bob-Im-glad-youre-not-i...

the same CEO that goes elephant hunting: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/31/bob-parsons-godaddy...

supporting SOPA fits in line with that philosophy. The one thing waterboarding, elephant hunting, SOPA and their misogynistic ads have in common is the element of using force against those who are far weaker than you are.

[mixmastamyk]

See harrylove's definition of misogynist below this. It's not a word that should be doled out frequently... just because an ad appreciates the female form.

[sp332]

Oh? I only remember their Superbowl ads, with a woman very willing to take her clothes off, and men having heart attacks etc. around her.

[DilipJ]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ap5XwwEGR7k&feature=relmf...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aHe_9nH_Mc

my IQ dropped just looking for these. I can't wait for the end of this company.

[harrylove]

Misogynistic (the hatred of women)? No, not in the ads, anyway.

Sexist? Furtherance of gender inequality? Perhaps as a side effect.

Sexual objectification? Definitely.