Are some domains indicative of one’s ethics?
An article slash opinion piece in Gizmodo, announces the well-known by now fact that Ebola.com is being offered for sale by its owner, Jon Schultz, for $150,000 dollars.
The article’s writer, Matt Novak, focuses on this sale as if it were a way to make money in times of fear.
Alongside the Washington Post article that referred to Jon Schultz as a “merchant of disease”, Novak’s op-piece is even more unsavory:
“It could not be confirmed at press time whether Schultz and Hood’s respective mothers were embarrassed that their sons were opportunistic pieces of human garbage who profit from the fears of others and contribute nothing of value to society.”
Despite all this negative publicity, it is expected that Mr. Schultz will be able to cut a deal with a major pharmaceutical company for the domain, eventually, especially when immunization against Ebola is mass produced.
For the Gizmodo post, click here.
i happen to know matt novak and i can assure you that within the last week he has donated 58% of his net worth to a cure for ebola.
I really fail to understand any negativity about this domain and its asking price as there is absolutely nothing wrong in any way including morally by registering and owning a disease domain name and offering it for sale.
I would say outside the domaining community David that opinion would be the complete opposite.
I made an offer to Fairwind for the Ebola.com name with the intention of pointing it to our http://www.Caution.com website. While I was not willing to pay $150k for the name, I did think it could sell for that price.