Quote:
Originally Posted by Toby
No question this guy was over line in how he was promoting this stuff, but what about the next one that's not so cut & dry? Where do we draw that line? And WHO decides where that line is? I'm certainly not comfortable with my domain registar making those decisions.
|
He was using FHGs and figured he was in ok shape. He was actually starting the get that 2257 info after they gave him his warning and deadline and locked his sites. Then, before that deadline, they shut them down. I'm not sure I agree with that.
That being said, I'm not a fan of the making-them-look-as-young-as-possible approach, and I don't really mind it maybe shaking some webmasters up into getting those thumbs away. They're really (besides menstruation porn) the only ones that make me cringe.
But I do worry about where the line is drawn like you do, and about what precedents are set. DirectNIC's TOS are probably the same as everyone else's, but that doesn't mean they handled this fairly. They've had the sites running for a long time, and then they get a complaint and shut down the sites in the way they did, asking for current model IDs and not even mentioning 2257? Seems a bit unprofessional to me. Kinda harsh to really mess up the livelihood of someone who was using FHGs that were seemingly 2257 compliant, with an autocropper.