GoDaddy locks out derivatives of Chrome Only allows direct versions of Google Chrome, Edge, Safari and Firefox See message here when using Brave, a Google Chrome (chromium) derivative: https://i.imgur.com/MV66H85.png Triggered when trying to log in. |
GoDaddy locks out derivatives of Chrome Only allows direct versions of Google Chrome, Edge, Safari and Firefox See message here when using Brave, a Google Chrome (chromium) derivative: https://i.imgur.com/MV66H85.png Triggered when trying to log in. |
- there was no way to move the "root" domain name away from Google Workspace while the account was still in service,
- after deleting the account, any access was definitely lost (I spent a lot of time on the phone with them, but they provided no help),
- the lost domain name was never "released", it remained officially under my ownership until the very last day of its registration period, even though I had no way to act on it.
- when I called that out a bug, they firmly replied that no there was no bug...
So, the lesson is: never use a domain name important for your business as the root domain name of a Google Workspace account, unless you really are sure that you will never need to move it to another registrar nor to delete the account.
The website's homepage is deceiving. The control panel they offer is really for power users. They expose literally everything, and have APIs for most things that you'd want to automate. For people who have to manage multiple domains, it's helpful.
My main personal domain is through freedns.afraid.org, which in turn uses registryrocket.com for the actual registrar. I'm sure there are better options as far as nameservers and registrars go, but (aside from me forgetting to renew every couple years) it's been rock solid and worth every penny of whatever pittance I ended up paying for a premium account a decade-ish ago.
And then I've got a random .is domain registered through 1984 Hosting. Still haven't figured out a use for it.
Again, in case most people don't know this, most hosting providers are resellers of the big companies. They all do the same thing and have access to the same stuff. The only difference is that individual company's pricing and service. Pick wisely!
Never ever use any google product if you might need to talk to a human.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Parsons#Controversies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_controversies_involvin...
If Gandi advertised with lewds, well. People would complain and they would probably stop.
The "scummy actions and questionable security practices" are both necessary and sufficient to persuade the informed reader not to patronize their services. Bringing in additional minor peccadillos weakens the argument by bringing out everyone who likes tits in ads.
No one likes the kind of bad behavior GoDaddy is known for.
This comment might seem a bit out-of-place if you don't happen to use showdead.
I'm just curious (I do not see any bad event in wikipedia: am I missing something?)
There is a "Controversies" section of their Wikipedia article with 8 distinct sub-headings, and the section is prefixed with "For a more comprehensive list, see List of controversies involving GoDaddy" linking to another dedicated 15-section article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GoDaddy#Controversies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_controversies_involvin...
(must say I do not see anything I consider that bad, imho)
Moreover the domain did not belong to my GoDaddy account (which makes sense, as I created the GW account and acquired the root domain several years before I signed up to GoDaddy). So maybe it was a hidden GoDaddy account, something like a service account for the exclusive use of GW internal tools?
I think to be consistent with the 'don't use women for ads' approach, you need to be opposed to use human-based or non-product-related human interest advertisement at all, which includes, but is probably not limited to men [1], children [2], the elderly [3], people of a certain demographic and/or sexual orientation and/or gender identity [4], or national rivalries [5][6] or stereotypes [7] or even the concepts of such. You would also have to have a stern look at the art scene, because sex also sells as sculpture, on canvas, as a particularly suggestive voice or on the screen - it may be part of the work, but it also has an advertising effect.
And what a bleak world would that be.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7C-vYY3SBDE [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqgSO8_cRio [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG4IaHgqH00 [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mw_gHMNs5iE [5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWvKVE6rLI0 [6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g72KE8dmjc [7] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMQnPWjK5pE
anyhow, imho, I do not see anything that I consider that bad; they are sure selling products that anybody involved in IT may consider at "low level", so avoiding it. I have the same reaction anytime I hear the term "Wordpress", but no doubt is used by so many.
So - yeh, agree in principle, disagree in practice.
Both times I had all domains moved over in less than 24 hours.
Then the transfer process takes about 2 minutes per domain so the whole process was done in a little over an hour.
Sure, it’s Tucows, but it’s not GD.
for example for .de domains though, the remaining time on your registration is dropped and you start fresh from the transferal day.
(Currently happy with the bitnami wordpress image, but wouldn't mind going 100% static!)
For the transfer it’s just like anywhere else. Initiate the transfer, get the code from the other registrar and wait for it to go through.
That feels… slimy…
You can use anybody as a registrar if you don’t want those tools though. CF sells domains at cost so it’s not something they aren’t making money on.
1) Perhaps GoDaddy is running a change on you that they haven't rolled out to me yet.
2) Perhaps I have a somewhat long history on this computer logging in using brave and that is overriding whatever heuristics they are using for 'that connection looks suspicious'. Have you logged into your account in Brave on this computer before? If so, for how long have you done so? In addition, if you turn off some of the brave shield (look at the lion in the URL bar), does the site load? It might be detecting that and using that as the heuristic that doesn't let you in.
3) Perhaps Brave rolled out an update that broke something. Unusual, but happens occasionally. Are you running standard brave on Windows, and if you go to Windows->About Brave is it saying that your browse is fully up to date?
As a note for all the people asking why people use GoDaddy, there are two things generally:
1) Sometimes, you didn't make the decision, and it's a pain in the butt to get things swapped over especially when your bosses are used to GoDaddy.
2) Their phone support is miles better than most of the competition. While sometimes you run into techs who don't help quite as much, sometimes you run into really good ones. This ratio of helpful : not helpful is quite a bit better than the competition. In addition, all of them are pretty understandable over the phone. (By the way, if any of you are looking to compete with companies like these, having good phone support really makes you stand out over the competition - you just have to make sure your support techs manage their support time well)
These things make them more difficult to replace.
Why, yes. Thank you for noticing. That is entirely intentional.
Welcome to the web.
I remember having to change the user agent string in Konqueror
Ad tech is the only reason I believe this garbage continues. Maybe we can hope and pray for some kind of regulatory relief on the horizon. Alternatively, we can start building services the way we know they need to be built, and quit our jobs when our dickhead MBA bosses order us to do inhumane things with the products.
If someone in my organization ordered me to do UA/browser filtering for our web application, I would likely quit out of protest. The primary reason no one asks for ridiculous things like this in my organization is because they are convinced that I actually will. I have made it abundantly clear to the business that certain areas of technology are no-go. Being assertive about this trash fast & early can keep it from becoming a thing in the first place. Clearly, not an option for every career & job, but developers are in such huge demand that they have a non-zero amount of control over this destiny now.
I can't log in at home, but it works fine at work.
Whatever it is, I'm never using godaddy again.
I called godaddy support and was ultimately told to use a different ISP.
Perhaps they aren’t as terrible in their non-free offerings, but I doubt it.
as I asked above, can you elaborate this? I am not aware at all
What most likely happens is that there is some fingerprinting JS running trying to weed out bots; and as Brave has a lot of anti-fingerprinting measures built-in, some of the tests fail.
The point is, I used the same 2FA key to log into my account, so I know it works.
As a result I was compelled to do the intended actions through the phone by calling their support.
Has anybody got the same problem? Are they trying to prevent people from freely modifying their settings, or is it that somehow they want to "fire me as a customer"?
But that's a pretty dark pattern, isn't it?
Do you happen to have some confirmation that they do it in that intent?
Also, if this is the case, why don't we see more people complaining (here for example)?
I was a happy namecheap user until they decided to go all political against Russian citizens. I am unsure as to what service I should migrate to.
Another alternative is NearlyFreeSpeech.net. i'm using them simply for DNS with great results and fantastic prices. IIRC, if you _just_ use them for DNS it costs 1c per domain per day. If they are your registrar, that drops to 1c/3 days. i'm only using them for registration and DNS and it costs me about $1.20 per year. Their UI is... somewhat 1990s... but it works well and they have outstanding absolutely-zero-BS/marketing-speak docs (which was the thing which caused them to win my evaluation for a new registrar).
https://www.technologizer.com/2010/09/16/the-unwelcome-retur...
Also submitted here:
Test the following, add into brave://adblock (custom filters):
godaddy.com##+js(set, navigator.userAgent, '')
godaddy.com##+js(set, navigator.connection, {})
(logout and re-login into godaddy)
So I don't doubt there's a limitation, but it doesn't seem to disallow every derivative browser (assuming I'm not misunderstanding you somehow).
Where are you seeing that? The error message doesn't say that's the problem, and it's much more likely to be that Brave is blocking something GoDaddy uses for login.
However, their recent switch to MS Office 365 / Outlook for email has been a fiasco, and pushed me one step closer to dropping them.
use porkbun, great service that does one thing well. like postmark.
Edit: Or do you need to try to log in to get this message? (That's what the screenshot suggests.)
I don't have any godaddy account to try it out but I very often get captcha to respond on on websites with a message saying my browsing has been flagged as possible bot access. I am using ghostery on firefox.
Nearly every metric is worse - from spam comment removal rate to adspam rate to credit card chargebacks.
I can completely understand a web host deciding to block any browser that isn't a major one.
And then you decide on the basis of the customer whether to block, not the browser.
Big registrars can’t afford any support costs since they prefer to squeeze the price down as far as possible, and therefore they prefer to simply lose or outright drop any customer in case of any and all problems. Conversely, small registrars may charge more, but have better (i.e. actually existing, and sometimes even dedicated and personal) support for when things go wrong, and have a vested interest in keeping you as a customer.
A small registrar might also be so small as to know you personally, which will help monumentally against any social engineering attacks.
Full disclosure: I work at such a registrar, but you’re probably not in our target market.
Speaking of ddclient, maybe check supported DNS services: https://github.com/ddclient/ddclient I don't think it's a good measure of quality, but if someone bothered extending ddclient for their service, it's probably not that bad. Plus if you ever find yourself wanting to use ddclient, it's nice having your provider supported. (NetCup is not supported, which is why I have to run an extra service on my Linux box instead of simply using the OpnSense).
> Cutting off Russians and Belarusians would only encourage the creation of different closed worlds and digital networks. We have chosen to hold out our hand to these people. We are not at war with them. Only their leaders, and their madness, need to be stopped. We will of course react quickly against war propaganda of any kind.
Few points that made me choose them (though I would probably take Cloudflare if they supported the TLD of my domains):
However one downside with choosing them is, you're effectively locked into their DNS, since they don't seem to expose the ability to set your own Nameservers, which is ok if you planned to use them for Authoritative DNS anyway.
You should be unhappy with the Russian government who are the ones enacting a genocide, not companies that either due to conscience, internal or external pressure, or sanctions, decide to boycott the whole of Russia. Being against war crimes is not a political stance.
At any rate, based on what I've read this is a false alarm anyways, it's annoying and stupid but UA banning is not browser detection. This is more ass-covering - another commenter mentioned too many layers of abstraction which is probably closer to the mark - something broke somewhere and a customer complained, they don't have the time nor inclination, or perhaps even ability, to fix their issue, so they do the 'we don't know what's wrong, halp' thing, versus making a more robust site.
Which fits my impression of their site, shoddy service with mediocre hosting services. Superbowl/pornstar marketing though, so everyone has heard of them, in comparison to aws (you have heard you can host godaddy even if you think Amazon is just a place to buy shoes, and Amazon is both bigger and better)
Changing your domain provider usually involves finding a new provider, evaluating it, setting up payments, moving a bunch of records and so on.
I know what I'd do unless I was already planning on changing my domain management.
The downside is that in the long run, you’re signalling to a consumer-hostile business that you’re happy for them to continue to be hostile towards you.
When dealing with duopolies, pragmatic solutions are all there are. When dealing with highly competitive marketplaces, ‘pragmatism’ and ‘laziness’ can often overlap in both positive and negative ways.
A positive pragmatic lazy solution I found to consolidate all the different registrars I used was to use Hover’s transfer-in concierge service. Of course, this now means giving money to Tucows instead, but they offend me less than GD.
anything else?
All the error message says is to disable extensions or try a different browser. It doesn't say what went wrong and it certainly doesn't say anything about needing specific user-agents, hell it doesn't even recommend which browser to switch to it just says "try another browser". As someone already mentioned it's not the site's job to figure out how your browser loaded the page wrong just to tell you it did.
Citation needed. Literally 100% of the JS code i've written over the past 24 years has been 100% free of "ads, trackers, and internal tools that somehow users have to contributor their data to."
It's a fair assumption that the majority of the code on the internet probably isn't written by you, so what you or any other individual writes isn't exactly a counter-argument.
I'd assume the poster you replied to was referring to the Javascript that gets delivered to their browser on a day to day basis by general purpose web sites, for which a significant percentage being ads and related unwanted content is entirely plausible.
If you were to capture all of the Javascript delivered to a randomly selected person's browser during a normal day I would easily believe somewhere between 50 and 80 percent of that Javascript was things that if the user was given a real choice they would not choose to load.
And on the flip side you can trivially detect if some .js file was blocked from loading with some inline <script> tag that checks for whatever the .js file should expose.
The third case with the browser not implementing some feature is a bit more work but usually also rather easy to do.
I still stand by that the error message could be a lot clearer regardless.
