> But you're going to dwell on whether the first initial island purchase itself was "legal" being a strong claim?

The article is claiming to be entirely factual. but this assertion is not actually true, so it isn't factual.

> internationally recognized crimes against humanity.

Most crimes against humanity are internationally recognised, its just not by the right people. frustrating, but not relevant to the point. Human rights watch have asserted that it is a crime against humanity. which is a strong indicator that it might be. but its not the same as a legal ruling from an international court.

> Reevaluate your ethics. It's utterly irrelevant. Slavery was LEGAL.

But thats the main point, all of this was legal. just not moral to our eyes. To assert that the land was illegally traded was incorrect, and an appeal bolster the original claim that people who buy and use .io are directly and actively supporting a very bad deed. The land was legally traded, the people were illegal moved.

Now its fair to say that Mauritius wants the land back, and without them, I doubt we would actually have known too much about this whole affair. (small island nations have a history of forced exile). This tale isn't unique or indeed unusual. what is unusual is that its been taken to court and won compensation.