Charityhost.org Review - Provider or Dominator!!!

gigazil

shit show still on... I really hope the host could have hired a decent pr or let this go.
I'm stupid enough to have a vps with them from year-end, now you guys stop bullying my boi, cause I want my lil chicken to live its full life, quietly.

nghialele

The more people digging in, the more interesting it gets lol

PineappleM

I haven’t looked at their offer threads but so long as people keep pummeling them in their offer threads and keep the popcorn popping, they should eventually go away and never come back to LET ever.

Bonus points if they end up deadpooling as a result. The company name was sketchy from the start, even if the business is legitimate otherwise. You’d think they either do hosting for charities or they donate a portion of their (meager) profits to charity, but they do neither. It’s just a misleading disingenuous name.

techdragon

@jure12 said:

@PineappleM said:
But if there is no domain pointed to that public_html folder then does it even matter if it’s stored there? Only way to find out is if you manually set the Host header to whatever random domain was set on that FTP account and then access the server, but you’d need to know what domain the account was set to in the first place.

(Unless I understand this all wrong)

Doesn't have to be a domain, can be a pure IP address.

EDIT:
It would be good if it looked like this.
https://ftp-us.imperva.com/Web/Account/Login.htm

.. but as far as I understood in his specific case it looked like this (example):
http://185.179.105.210/

@CharityHost_org shill account which will be why they're the only 'customer' with anything good to say.

zed

Does anyone else listen to Yakety Sax while reading @CharityHost_org threads?

bdspice

From my point of view, i think they do giveaway here to promote there brand & make some customer. Then they snoop free user's data if they use full disk or atleast 80%. Because they expect free users to use minimum resources. Then they suspend if user use more space and ask for the money so they can cover free storage cost. But here is the twist happened when one free customer exposed them which CH never expected. Also people able to find his mistake which make him more furious. I assume he has not enough customer to bear his server cost which make him frustrated. This is just my thinking, it can be happened or not.

PineappleM

The joke of it all is I doubt any serious charity that needs cloud computing would use a host called CharityHost. I’m sure reputable hosts like OVH and others have discounted pricing for non-profits while also being robust, reliable, and competent.

We do charity fundraisers (hence why I look for rock-bottom deals since our budget is entirely reliant on donations) yet I never considered CharityHost once, even before this whole scandal, just because the name seemed very disingenuous and I didn’t see many recommendations from reputable LET members. I’m glad I never did after all this has blown open.

Kebab

@CharityHost_org is a joke

mw

@PineappleM said:
The joke of it all is I doubt any serious charity that needs cloud computing would use a host called CharityHost. I’m sure reputable hosts like OVH and others have discounted pricing for non-profits while also being robust, reliable, and competent.

We do charity fundraisers (hence why I look for rock-bottom deals since our budget is entirely reliant on donations) yet I never considered CharityHost once, even before this whole scandal, just because the name seemed very disingenuous and I didn’t see many recommendations from reputable LET members. I’m glad I never did after all this has blown open.

CH appears to mainly serve PBOs in South East Asia, particularly India, and now peddles warez to the Chinese

Very interesting choice of target market

itachikonoha

@mw said:

@PineappleM said:
The joke of it all is I doubt any serious charity that needs cloud computing would use a host called CharityHost. I’m sure reputable hosts like OVH and others have discounted pricing for non-profits while also being robust, reliable, and competent.

We do charity fundraisers (hence why I look for rock-bottom deals since our budget is entirely reliant on donations) yet I never considered CharityHost once, even before this whole scandal, just because the name seemed very disingenuous and I didn’t see many recommendations from reputable LET members. I’m glad I never did after all this has blown open.

CH appears to mainly serve PBOs in South East Asia, particularly India, and now peddles warez to the Chinese

Very interesting choice of target market

PBO?

mw

@itachikonoha said:

@mw said:

@PineappleM said:
The joke of it all is I doubt any serious charity that needs cloud computing would use a host called CharityHost. I’m sure reputable hosts like OVH and others have discounted pricing for non-profits while also being robust, reliable, and competent.

We do charity fundraisers (hence why I look for rock-bottom deals since our budget is entirely reliant on donations) yet I never considered CharityHost once, even before this whole scandal, just because the name seemed very disingenuous and I didn’t see many recommendations from reputable LET members. I’m glad I never did after all this has blown open.

CH appears to mainly serve PBOs in South East Asia, particularly India, and now peddles warez to the Chinese

Very interesting choice of target market

PBO?

public benefit org

TimboJones

@jure12 said:

@PineappleM said:
But if there is no domain pointed to that public_html folder then does it even matter if it’s stored there? Only way to find out is if you manually set the Host header to whatever random domain was set on that FTP account and then access the server, but you’d need to know what domain the account was set to in the first place.

(Unless I understand this all wrong)

Doesn't have to be a domain, can be a pure IP address.

EDIT:
It would be good if it looked like this.
https://ftp-us.imperva.com/Web/Account/Login.htm

.. but as far as I understood in his specific case it looked like this (example):
http://185.179.105.210/

So a sharedhosting server is configured by default to share this specific user's dirs under their home dir? That would also be incompetence by the provider, not customer.

nghialele

@Kebab said:
@CharityHost_org is a joke

Agree

cybertech

@Francisco said:

@TimboJones said: The clue in public_html is HTML. The clue to you, McFly, is that this was an FTP account.

But why would it be public? It's an FTP server, so only anonymous FTP access would find this.

Also, let me know what browser browses FTP without having to make advanced configuration change. Most popular browsers disabled that by default years ago.

FTP is getting used 'fast and loose' with this.

What Charity sold was effectively a very very very large shared hosting account (directadmin? whatever panel). It isn' intended for hosting a public website, rather as just backup storage/masterbatorium.

Maybe the op had his content in public_html to make it easier to browse and lotion up.

The smart idea would've been for Charity to break/disable/etc the webserver on the servers to force it to always be over FTP. Then again, if he had done that, he wouldn't able to say 'his stuff was public'.

The product should be 'fixed' in this regard. Disable the webserver, local firewall at 80/443, whatever.

Francisco

can you walk through step by step with CH how to do this? he's clearly not equipped with the knowledge to do so.

nor be a provider.

i wonder how the charities would react after finding this out

cybertech

btw i still remember OP as 500GB porn guy.

bdspice

@cybertech said:
btw i still remember OP as 500GB porn guy.

We should meet one day to remember me as something else 😬

Francisco

@bdspice said:

@cybertech said:
btw i still remember OP as 500GB porn guy.

We should meet one day to remember me as something else 😬

“Did you wash your hands before hand?”

Francisco

cybertech

@bdspice said:

@cybertech said:
btw i still remember OP as 500GB porn guy.

We should meet one day to remember me as something else 😬

looking forward to that day but hope it's not to visit strip clubs

bdspice

@Francisco said:

@bdspice said:

@cybertech said:
btw i still remember OP as 500GB porn guy.

We should meet one day to remember me as something else 😬

“Did you wash your hands before hand?”

Francisco

Mentally strong people’s dont use hand.

nghialele

@cybertech said:

@bdspice said:

@cybertech said:
btw i still remember OP as 500GB porn guy.

We should meet one day to remember me as something else 😬

looking forward to that day but hope it's not to visit strip clubs

I hope he will make u good meals or such

bdspice

@cybertech said:

@bdspice said:

@cybertech said:
btw i still remember OP as 500GB porn guy.

We should meet one day to remember me as something else 😬

looking forward to that day but hope it's not to visit strip clubs

I never visit strip clubs. Once or twice visit club in whole 35 years life when visiting Dubai.

CharityHost_org

Thanks for the dramage! It's served our SEO wonderfully! Selling more than ever!

bdspice

@CharityHost_org said:
Thanks for the dramage! It's served our SEO wonderfully! Selling more than ever!

Another imaginary story 😝

nghialele

@bdspice said:

@CharityHost_org said:
Thanks for the dramage! It's served our SEO wonderfully! Selling more than ever!

Another imaginary story 😝

Brudda let him brag, he will donate 75% of it lmao lmao

CharityHost_org

@CharityHost_org said:

@Finisher said:
you say you don’t care, but I know it’s eating you up inside, anyway next time try not to snoop around

Less than .001% of the members are toxic, and they are all here doing this. Yes, it's upsetting when you constantly attacked by toxicity.

BUT, in reality it does not matter, it's just SEO fodder for the SEO overlord machines making the forum an SEO big bang. That's why moderation just let it ride. PR is PR, SEO is SEO. As long as it's deemed as human content it works. It does not matter if they think they are virtuous defending community or blatant assumptions, lies, etc. SEO does not care.

Bare in mind, good customers do not do any of this attacks. Really, if toxic members do not signup, all the better. I have too much work to worry about toxic would be customers. CharityHost.org seems to live rent free in all these toxic minds. Not our doing.

cybertech

@CharityHost_org said:

@CharityHost_org said:

@Finisher said:
you say you don’t care, but I know it’s eating you up inside, anyway next time try not to snoop around

Less than .001% of the members are toxic, and they are all here doing this. Yes, it's upsetting when you constantly attacked by toxicity.

BUT, in reality it does not matter, it's just SEO fodder for the SEO overlord machines making the forum an SEO big bang. That's why moderation just let it ride. PR is PR, SEO is SEO. As long as it's deemed as human content it works. It does not matter if they think they are virtuous defending community or blatant assumptions, lies, etc. SEO does not care.

Bare in mind, good customers do not do any of this attacks. Really, if toxic members do not signup, all the better. I have too much work to worry about toxic would be customers. CharityHost.org seems to live rent free in all these toxic minds. Not our doing.

CharityHost_org

Made top of the google search! Way to go guys! You killed it!
All other links pointing in the right direction!

CharityHost_org

https://www.google.com/search?q=charityhost.org+reviews

Yep

CharityHost_org

This is what I call Class A witch hunt backfiring. SEO dont care honestly. You should revise how you deal with your own toxicity. My suggestion from human to human (or bots I guess), is to tone down the attacking and insisting on it. Ask questions, get answers, respectfully it works. We are sensible, but we loathe being attacked. It's simple following the LET golden rule. If we were defensive, it's due to insults and blatant disrespect, it's hard to stomach that, not because of questioning. Anyway, this made it to TOP google search for 'CharityHost.org reviews'. You can see that we have good SEO by far. Our customer base are good customers that trust us and we trust them, we respect their privacy and when requested we troubleshoot with their permission granted access.

Note: We did not run to LET breaking AUP and expose anything about the issue to make this 'our own doing'. We are happy to work out issue with customers off LET as well.

lala_th

Based on the discussion thread Charityhost.org Review - Provider or Dominator!!! on LowEndTalk, here are the key insights:

1. Origin of the Conflict: The thread was started by user bdspice as a negative review of CharityHost.org. This follows a previous incident where bdspice's free server (won in a giveaway) was suspended for hosting prohibited content ("500gb Pron"). While that initial issue was reportedly resolved (user deleted content, provider unsuspended), a new conflict arose.

2. Core Accusation by bdspice: The user claims that approximately two weeks after the initial resolution, CharityHost_org pressured them to post a positive clarification or review on LowEndTalk to counter negative discussions surrounding the provider. When bdspice refused, their server was allegedly suspended again. bdspice provides a screen recording of ticket messages as evidence.

3. Provider's Response (CharityHost_org):

   • Initially dismisses the thread as a "total waste of everyone's time" and invites others to "Enjoy your popcorn."
   • Challenges bdspice to post the entire ticket history.
   • Provides their own excerpts from the ticket conversation to add context.
   • Defends looking into the user's data related to the initial suspension, arguing that "Seeing public domain data is not snooping," a statement heavily contested by other users.

4. Community Reaction & Key Themes:

   • "Drama": Many users immediately recognize the situation as "drama" and comment humorously ("Where’s the popcornnnnnnn??!!!", "Happy Easter.", "Resurrection Drama Performance?").
   • Snooping/Privacy Concerns: A significant point of contention is whether CharityHost_org inappropriately accessed or "snooped" on the user's data, even if it led to discovering the AUP violation. Users like hyperblast, bikrama, and M66B strongly criticize the provider's stance that checking data isn't snooping if it's "public domain."
   • Professionalism: User labze (another provider) criticizes CharityHost_org's approach, stating that providers shouldn't pick fights with clients, regardless of who is right or wrong, and notes that the client (bdspice) appeared fair in the provided ticket excerpts. This comment received significant positive reactions ("thanks") from the community.
   • Treatment of Giveaway Winner: bdspice feels they were treated as a "worthless user" because the server was free, obtained through a giveaway.
   • Provider Conduct: bdspice accuses the provider of being "childish," invading privacy, calling users "trollers," and requests LowEndTalk admins consider suspending their provider tag.

5. Evidence: Both bdspice (via Google Drive link) and CharityHost_org (directly in posts) shared parts of their ticket communication to support their respective viewpoints.

In summary: The thread revolves around a user's negative review alleging unfair treatment (pressure to post positively, subsequent suspension) by CharityHost.org after an initial conflict over AUP violation was supposedly resolved. The discussion highlights community concerns about provider professionalism, user privacy ("snooping"), and the handling of customer disputes, particularly involving free or promotional services. The provider defends their actions but faces significant criticism from other forum members.