Absence of sabotage as a legitimate service

[Jonathan Nitzan]

A few days ago, I discovered that my domain-name provider (https://networksolutions.com) was about to renew my subscription for ‘Domain Privacy + Protection’, to the tune of $17.24 + taxes (roughly double last year’s charges). I also realized that (due to a glitch, no doubt) I was being charged twice for the same ‘service’ (i.e. 34.48 + taxes). These reminders piqued my interest, so I called NetworkSolutions.

I found that domain-name providers are expected to make my information public; but, then, if I pay them a proper ransom — currently $17.24 + tax, or twice as much in my own case — they’ll save me the hassle and keep my information private (namely in their hands only).

A quick Google AI search offered the following neoclassical rationale (my emphases):

You have to pay for WHOIS privacy because domain registrars often treat it as an optional add-on service, and it requires resources and infrastructure to maintain. Domain privacy protection replaces your personal contact information in the WHOIS database with the registrar’s contact information, preventing it from being publicly accessible.

And:

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regulates domain name registration and WHOIS data. While ICANN mandates the availability of WHOIS information, they allow registrars to offer privacy protection services.

***

But this explanation doesn’t really stick.

In standard economic theology, buyers are paying for a good or service. But here, they pay to avoid a disservice — namely, to prevent the corporate seller from causing them harm. In other words, it’s a Mafia-type protection fee.

In the newspeak of oligarchic capitalism, absence of sabotage is a legitimate service.

 

• This topic was modified 2 weeks, 6 days ago by Jonathan Nitzan.

Topic