ebola.com , would 150k be cheap ? or unethical

[Murray]

Well, it would be against my ethics, and therefore I would label it "unethical", because I would link it to making exploitative profits from other people's suffering.

In the real world, who has suffered because the domain name ebola.com has been registered to you and then to another domainer?

 

[martin-s]

If a drug company owned the domain and used it to market their ebola drugs, which are sold at profit, isn't it just as simple a commercial decision as any other domain sale?

If a charity wanted it to publish news and advice, that's obviously different. Then maybe you'd just be better letting them use it for free (during the crisis or indefinitely), without necessarily transferring it.

That said, like others on here, I personally steer away from medical, sexual, illegal, etc. domains for exactly this sort of reason.

 

[accelerator]

In the real world, who has suffered because the domain name ebola.com has been registered to you and then to another domainer?

No-one directly, I do take your point and I do see the argument. However, it may be a slightly obscure point I'm making, but I'm saying the domain cost is indirectly contributing to pushing up the price of potentially life saving drugs. It's the ethics of the biosciences industry we're discussing here really. What keeps me away from domains like this is that if I were to attempt to sell it, my profiteering may be causing indirect harm to people, i.e. preventing them receiving potentially life-saving treatment.

Rgds

 

[RobM]

I think there are far more unethical things happening in the pharmaceutical industry. However it's far easier to vilify a domain owner than other capitalists.

 

[ChrisMM]

Well, it would be against my ethics, and therefore I would label it "unethical", because I would link it to making exploitative profits from other people's suffering...

Like buying the domain GlucoseMonitors.co.uk

 

[accelerator]

Like buying the domain GlucoseMonitors.co.uk

It's a question of degrees. I don't have a problem with making money from the biosciences section in general, and I have owned shares in vaccine companies. I don't have any problem with owning GlucoseMonitors.co.uk and looking to sell it for a profit. It can't be that exploitative, no-ones ever wanted to buy it!!

Rgds

 

[accelerator]

More background on the ebola.com sale:

http://time.com/money/3534676/ebola-com-marijuana-gary-johnson/

Rgds

 

[SF]

www.ebola.co.uk - owned by TagNames

 

[SF]

www.ebolasymptoms.co.uk

 

[anthony]

It's a thread over nothing this one. If someone has ethical reasons not to buy, then that's fine by them. If however a seller wants to sell to a buyer who wants to buy, then great, no one is harmed.

 

[Murray]

www.ebola.co.uk - owned by TagNames

They're redirecting it to unicef ebola donate page tbf

 

[namealot]

I’d say new owners are very politically aware if you look at some of there board CEO Gary Johnson, the former two-term governor of New Mexico? (former Libertarian Party presidential candidate) who thinks that pot should be used to treat Ebola and that government bureaucracy is preventing researchers from exploring use of marijuana as a treatment?. The cynic might say overstating marijuana’s medicinal benefits to boost his company’s earnings.

"Steve" Kubby California Proposition 215, also owner of the first patented marijuana plant? So you could easy argue sellers have sold to a company that believes it has a cure? Who’s to say its not or that it would have better gone to a pharmaceutical company, health organisation etc

Stumbles are there are many ebola-related search terms, site has little or no links (well didn’t have until it sold?) Ebola.com doesn’t rank at all. For anything other than Ebola.com? its content is basically ebolanewshub.com clone, someone else coming up with a cure ?

For it sheds loads of publicity millions of monthly searches (they might get 5- 10 k amth in just adsence as a starter if they did it right?) But all dependant with ongoing, worldwide Ebola crisis

Personally think it’s just a cheap way to publicise “the new Big Tobacco” with an eye on Washington and several other states rolling out legalisation

On a side not do you think this lot tried to cash in on it years ago or just piss poor luck

http://ebola.agency/en

 

[philiporchard]

For it sheds loads of publicity millions of monthly searches (they might get 5- 10 k amth in just adsence as a starter if they did it right?) But all dependant with ongoing, worldwide Ebola crisis
http://ebola.agency/en

I think you'd struggle to run ads on a site like this. You'd have so many words that could be 'stop words'.
http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/internet/adsense-stop-words.htm

 

[DLOE]

Ebola dot com has had way too much exposure, Ebola itself has had way too little support from the "rich" countries... We should have taken action against it ages ago, the same goes for this stinking disease called ISIS, with all the money we are paying towards the EU/NATO/ANDWHATEVERTHEFUCK things should have been sorted ages ago...

 

[Adam H]

ebola hits the UK :

 

[namealot]

Ebola dot com has had way too much exposure, Ebola itself has had way too little support from the "rich" countries... We should have taken action against it ages ago, the same goes for this stinking disease called ISIS, with all the money we are paying towards the EU/NATO/ANDWHATEVERTHEFUCK things should have been sorted ages ago...

We actually give them more money than we give EU/NATO/ANDWHATEVERTHEFUCK to fight them? Unlike any other groups its primary funding is from its enemies buying oil from them...

 

[aZooZa]

Ebola dot com has had way too much exposure, Ebola itself has had way too little support from the "rich" countries... We should have taken action against it ages ago, the same goes for this stinking disease called ISIS, with all the money we are paying towards the EU/NATO/ANDWHATEVERTHEFUCK things should have been sorted ages ago...

Oh -- a man so much after my own heart!!! Smack bang on the money.