Isn’t this a very common phrase? Surely, someone already thought about this?

    • TrontheTechie@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You just know someone bought that domain hoping to turn it into a gangbusters online clothes retailer and the best they could manage to do is camp on it and sell it.

      Could’ve been Bezos, instead was a bozo.

      • Polydextrous@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Were they a bozo, though? If they sold that domain to FB, there is a great chance they just banked like gangbusters.

        • TrontheTechie@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I suppose it depends on your outlook. I’d rather have had the passive income over time paid in stock options that multiply in value that I can get interest free loans against to file tax losses than the one time payout you have to pay gains on.

          Hindsight is 20/20

          Edit to add: there’s also a non zero chance that Meta swooped in like Disney did to Central Florida, set up a secret shell company to buy the property under value so no one knows what big business is behind the acquisition.

    • restarossa@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Isn’t this something else though? Meta’s is .net isn’t it? So even they couldn’t get the .com…

      edit: Indeed it’s nothing to do with Meta, though it seems kinda related. Bit surprised Meta went with the name actually.

      • Silver Golden@lemmy.brendan.ie
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        ah ye are right, I briefly checked out .com and it seemed to roughly match

        .net was registered in 1997 so the same roughly still applies