WikiLeaks - a controversial domain to go with controversial content.
We had an interesting conversation earlier today with New York domain investor and real estate broker, Nick Spanos.
Nick supports freedom of speech in the Libertarian sense, just like politician Ron Paul does; the latter recently defended the right of WikiLeaks to release the classified information.
Nick’s position is related to the domain name itself. As a domain name, WikiLeaks consists of a first part that reeks of computer geekiness and a second part that refers to leaking; something that does not deliver any positive connotations.
But what if the controversial web site that has been publishing all this information, embarrassing governments around the world used a different domain?
For example, when the Washington Post broke the news about the Watergate scandal, there was no Internet; it was the duty of the Press and the newspaper and its reporters to unveil a conspiracy and deliver the news.
But what if MiamiHerald.com or WashingtonPost.com or even NYPost.com were the deliverers of the WikiLeaks content? Would there be the same amount of outrage and the same attempt to “shoot” the proverbial “messenger”?
Quite often, documents are classified in order to protect ongoing situations and those involved; in the case of the WikiLeaks web site and its operator, Julian Assange, the freshness of information can create plenty of instability in the governments involved. Perhaps, if a less controversial domain name were chosen, less controversy would be generated.
And that’s why choosing a domain carefully really matters.
