The debates are beginning to heat up when it comes to new gTLDs and during such debates, a lot of domainers are unfortunately using strong words without realizing that they’re far from objective when it comes to the matter at hand.
Let’s be honest, almost nobody is unbiased.
All of us have more or less hidden agendas, even if we don’t realize it.
Think about it.
If you have a portfolio that consists almost exclusively of dot coms, wouldn’t it be in your best interest for new gTLDs to flop?
If you’ve invested a lot in new gTLDs, wouldn’t it be in your best interest for them to do well?
In both cases (again, whether you realize it or not), you have an agenda and are therefore incapable of being objective/unbiased.
The message I’m trying to get across is simple: if the matter that’s being discussed affects you then I’m sorry but you are not unbiased.
You might say you are.
You might think you are.
But you aren’t.
Is that a bad thing?
Of course not, of course it’s not a bad thing that domainers are directly interested in what’s happening due to current portfolio exposure-related reasons or due to other aspects. It’s perfectly understandable.
I mean sure, maybe a person who doesn’t own any domains can be considered objective/unbiased but how many such people are reading domain blogs, for example?
I don’t know about you guys but I for one don’t exactly have the habit of reading articles related to things which in no way affect me.
Maybe such people exist and that’s why I used the word “almost” in the title but even if they do, I’m reasonably confident they represent an almost insignificant minority.
I didn’t write this article to say that having an agenda is a good thing or a bad thing. You have an agenda, I have an agenda and almost everyone else has one as well. That’s just the way it is. I’m just saying that before “accusing” others of something like this, it might be a good idea to look in the mirror