Everyone’s heard of a .com site, but could .meow be in soon in the cards? A group of LGBTQ technology creators are hoping to make .meow a reality, but they need your help.

.Meow would become a new top-level domain, or TLD. For those who aren’t super techy, that’s the name for the ending part of the domain. For example, in NCRM’s URL, thenewcivilrightsmovement.com, “.com” is the top-level domain.

For a long time in the internet’s history, there have only been a few accepted ones: .com for companies, .org for organizations, .gov for government, .net for networks, .edu for schools and .mil for military organizations. (Real nerds will also point out .arpa, the very first top-level domain; it was intended for the original sites on the ARPANET, the precursor to the internet. Now it’s used just for infrastructure purposes.)

READ MORE: Trump: I’d Make TikTok ‘100% MAGA’ if I Could — but Says It Will Be Fair

In addition to those, top-level domains also included country codes, two-character codes that shared where a site was located. For example, English people are much more likely to go to Amazon.co.uk rather than Amazon.com. Oddly enough, country codes could be an economic boon to smaller countries. For example, Tuvalu frequently sold domains to television fans so they could have URLs ending in “.tv”.

But the world of domains has slowly been opening up with themed TLDs. In 2000, a few more were added like .biz for businesses who missed out on the .com version of their name and .museum for, well, museums. In 2012, that opened even wider to TLDs like .bike, and now there are about 1,200 TLDs available.

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is the group that maintains all of these TLDs. ICANN is opening another round of applications for new TLDs next April, and the dotMeow Foundation wants to add .meow to the list as an explicitly queer TLD.

The dotMeow Foundation points out on its site that there are .lgbt and .gay already, but it plans to use all profits from .meow registrations to go to the queer community, with a specific focus on transgender issues.

“This all started as a joke — a ‘how hard could it be?’ over drinks. Now we’re deep in the ICANN process, with support secured to lower our costs,” the site says.

To fund its plans, dotMeow has turned to a new Kickstarter campaign. It’s seeking €80,000 (or $94,114), to help pay for the application and other costs. Though it usually costs $227,000 to apply for a new TLD, dotMeow has been accepted into ICANN’s support program which cuts the application cost to no more than $56,750, depending on how many other organizations are promised help. The €80,000 would cover the application, operational costs, Kickstarter’s fee and additional legal work, the foundation says.

As to why they’re looking for .meow in particular, the organization says that it has “broad appeal.” .Meow domains would be available to anyone who wants one.

“While ‘meow’ is a deliberate nod to the catgirls (and boys, and others) among us, it’s about more than that,” the Kickstarter campaign reads. “As the internet has become increasingly centralised, queer communities have increasingly been pushed to the margins, often out of a desire to be palatable to advertisers. Time and again we’ve been building community spaces online on borrowed infrastructure, at the mercy of platform owners and hosting costs.”

Though dotMeow says that it cannot guarantee that ICANN will accept its proposal, the foundation is offering concrete perks like digital wallpapers, stickers and t-shirts, that will be created and sent to backers regardless. That said, the main perk for contributing is vouchers for donors’ own .meow URLs and websites.

Image via Shutterstock

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) said that President Donald Trump was reticent to reveal the identities of any of the men accused of abusing children in the Epstein files was because “My friends will get hurt.”

Greene made the allegation in a new interview with The New York Times published Monday morning. She said that Trump told her the reason while on a call after a press conference where Greene said she may expose the names of some of those listed in the files related to disgraced financier and convicted sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein.

Trump had called Greene in her office, and a staff member told the Times that the entire office could hear the president shouting at Greene over a speakerphone. The article alleges that she was confused why Trump was so upset, and her question led to the remark.

READ MORE: DOJ Issues ‘Bizarre’ Disclaimer Defending Trump in Latest Epstein Files Dump

Greene also alleges that she asked Trump to invite some of Epstein’s victims to the White House, but he balked at the suggestion. Trump reportedly told her that the women abused by Epstein hadn’t done anything to warrant a White House invitation. Greene says this is the last time she talked with the president.

She says the outburst blindsided her as previously she had believed Trump’s assertions that he was not in the Epstein files.

“The story to me was that I’d seen pictures of Epstein with all these people. And Trump is just one of several. And then, for me, I’d seen that Bill Clinton is on the flight logs for his plane like 20-something times. So, for people like me, it wasn’t suspicious. And then we’d heard the general stories of how Epstein used to be a member of Mar-a-Lago, but Trump kicked him out. Why would I think he’s done anything wrong, right?” Greene told the Times about her beliefs prior to the phone call.

Though Greene was formerly a staunch ally of Trump, her interest in the Epstein files caused Trump to turn on her. She joined with Reps. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Ro Khanna (D-CA) to force a House vote compelling the Department of Justice to release all of its files on the Epstein case, with the only redactions to protect victims’ names.

The bill ultimately passed both House and Senate and was signed by Trump, giving the DOJ a December 19 deadline to release the information, But when the date rolled around, only a portion of the files were released. What was available was heavily redacted, with names of co-conspirators and others blacked out.

Shortly after Trump called her a “traitor” on his Truth Social platform over her calls to release the Epstein files, Greene announced that she would be resigning from the House January 5, midway through her term.

Image via Reuters

Over half of Americans disapprove of the job Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts is doing, according to a new Gallup poll.

In a poll taken this month by Gallup, 53% of American adults disapprove of the job Roberts is doing, compared to 38% who approve and 9% with no opinion. This is the highest disapproval rating since Gallup started asking the question.

It’s also the first time his disapproval rating has been higher than his approval rating. The last time the question was asked was in December 2023, where 46% disapproved compared to 48% approval. Even that was a huge step down from December 2021 when 60% approved and 34% approved.

READ MORE: ‘Brutal’: Trump Approval Tanks as Support Plummets Across Key Issues, Poll Shows

When broken out by demographics, 67% of Republicans approved of the job Roberts was doing, compared to 21% disapproval. Only 16% of Democrats approved while 78% disapproved, and among Independents, 35% approved while 57% disapproved.

The poll was conducted via telephone between December 1-15, and had a sample size of 1,016 adults across America. The margin of error was 4%.

The Supreme Court under Roberts has frequently come under fire, particularly when it comes to cases involving President Donald Trump. While the court has not always sided with the president—on Tuesday, it ruled against him in the case about deploying the national guard to Chicago—public perception is that the Court is in Trump’s pocket.

In June 2024, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) called the Roberts Court the “most corrupt in American history.” A September 2021 Gallup poll saw the full Court’s approval rating hit a record low of 40%.

A month after Ocasio-Cortez made her comments, the Court made one of its most controversial rulings—deciding that Trump had immunity from prosecution for any acts made in an “official” capacity as president. The Court ruled 6-3 in that case along ideological lines, with Roberts himself writing the court’s opinion.

Experts were shocked that the Court even took up that particular case, as there had been no contradiction in lower court rulings about the limits of presidential immunity.

“Let’s not beat around the bush, decision by the Supreme Court to hear the Trump immunity case is outrageous and, at its heart, fundamentally corrupt,” author and legal expert David Rothkopf wrote at the time the Court decided to hear the case. “The Appeals Court decision was bullet proof and there is no case Trump has any sort of immunity. The decision not to hear it until late April makes further significant trial delays likely. They are deliberately delaying the trial without any reasonable legal reason to do so. This is a political decision and, in my estimation, an ugly one.”