While most recognized the danger of that irresponsible and short sighted bill and took action against it, some companies supported it strongly and even testified to that effect in Congress.
GoDaddy was one of those companies, and while it later tried to undo the damage its position had done (the new Chief Executive Officer seems a little more in touch), the Internet isnt so good at forgetting or forgiving.
Among the many, many sites that pledged to leave GoDaddys DNS service was Wikipedia, and after three months of work, theyve finally done so.
MarkMonitor specializes in brand protection and prevention of fraud and piracy; their services include monitoring of peer to peer networks and redirection of users away from potentially fraudulent sites.
Its likely that the Wikimedia foundation was using the companys services to monitor and prevent fake Wikipedia sites, illegal uses of Wikimedia assets or tools, and so on.
So, not perhaps the sunshine and flowers solution people might have wanted for Wikipedia as an antidote to GoDaddy, but it mustnt be forgotten that the Wikimedia Foundation runs one of the most popular and widely accessed sites on the internet, and therefore necessarily one of the most vulnerable.
Heavy duty partners are necessary to deliver and maintain the integrity of their content.
Wikipedias migration, and that of hundreds of other sites, should act as a warning to Internet companies that fail to heed the opinions of their customers.
Cyber activism may not do much to depose African warlords, but it can certainly have a real effect on virtual tyrants.
