This article is regarding the use of the .ly = Libya URL shorteners and my fledgling Twitter campaign  which has morphed into THE LIST of organizations, politicians, governments, etc. THE LIST has reached 2,061* which I hope will raise awareness of ".ly" URL shortners which are subject to islamic 'morality.'

I am standing with my original take, that the .ly = Libya is a danger to us. I just think the same way that the Creeping Sharia people do, that .ly URL shorteners, which include bit.ly and ow.ly, among others, is insidious and an ideological danger, the same way Hitler started out. A danger nevertheless. *Please see 24Jan 2010 update below -  Creeping Sharia's response to Rex Dixon, of bit.ly regarding bit.ly's comments after their April 2009 article.

Regarding Bob Martin’s ridiculous analogy: How can you compare the state of Delaware to the terrorist state of Libya? And my concern is emotionally deeper than ‘lost data.’ I was thinking more of the families of the Lockerbie mass murder bombing that included people in the air and also on the ground and how they might feel about Libya ideology infiltrating the Internet, which is a weak and porous border for the free world. This is an argument that illustrates an ideological difference in people’s values and necessitates a conscious decision to ‘choose your battles.' I wish and hope that I could believe that .ly = Libya is not a creeping sharia, but I am a realist. I haven’t given up all of my dreams, just look through a different scope these days. Israel is precious and so is America.

*Updated number on list 11May2010
Raising awareness of bit.ly URL shortener. ly=libya, subject to islamic "morality" Plz use another!

Creeping Sharia responds to Rex Dixon from bit.ly


creeping said on A Little Bit.ly Sharia? Tech Business Builds on Libya Domain

Rex Dixon,

If you are from bit.ly your response if more than disappointing.

First and foremost, the story came from sites including Gawker, Workbench, and Domain Name Wire – none of which you chose to leave a comment on.

In none of those stories nor here did anyone even come close to suggesting any type of “conspiracy” between bit.ly and Libya. To even suggest so is the purest of propaganda and obfuscation.

Further, no one ever suggested that your site was not secure either. But again, that is not the issue. Nor is the issue doing business in Libya, as you and other commenters suggested.

We posted the information in April 2009 and your are now responding, proving that you are clearly NOT too busy with your billions of Libyan-domain-named short URL’s to formulate a comment that does nothing to address the issues brought up by the various sources.

While you may not want your users and the general public to know that the .ly domain name is a Libyan controlled domain and disputes are potentially subject to Islamic morality law – which is completely opposed to the U.S. Constitution – other sites and blogs chose to share that information.

Users can make up their own mind based on the totality of information and potential risk.

If bitly were to unequivocally announce it will support and defend any bitly user who in the future might face legal action from a knee-jerk reaction from Libya as a result of a bitly url containing content that is “contrary to Libyan law or Islamic morality” then skeptics might have more confidence (that would apply to any business using the Libyan domain).

Just like citizens have the option to vote/note vote for politicians who make policy decisions they don’t agree with (such as removing Libya from state sponsors of terror list), they also have the option of choosing which technology services they use.

See all comments on this post here.