Slashdot Mirror
Google Cancels Domain Registration For Neo-Nazi Website Daily Stormer (businessinsider.com)
Google has cancelled the domain registration for The Daily Stormer, the company confirmed to news outlet BusinessInsider. After GoDaddy kicked the neo-Nazi website off its service on Monday, a "whois" search for the domain had noted that the website had moved its domain registrar to Google. In a statement, Google said, "We are cancelling Daily Stormer's registration with Google Domains for violating our terms of service." Last week, The Daily Stormer posted an offensive article about Heather Heyer, a 32-year-old legal assistant, who was killed by a car that 20-year-old James Alex Fields Jr. drove into a group of protestors at the Unite the Right white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia on Saturday.
A message purportedly posted by hackers appeared on the Daily Stormer a few hours ago, The Guardian reported. Anonymous hacker group has taken credit for "hacking" the website, according to the message posted on the website, which adds that the editing rights of the website are now in the hands of Anonymous. It remains unclear, however, whether the site has actually been hacked.
A message purportedly posted by hackers appeared on the Daily Stormer a few hours ago, The Guardian reported. Anonymous hacker group has taken credit for "hacking" the website, according to the message posted on the website, which adds that the editing rights of the website are now in the hands of Anonymous. It remains unclear, however, whether the site has actually been hacked.
It shoudn't be questioned that neo nazi speech is bad, they're the enemy.
It shoudn't be questioned that capitalist speech is bad, they're the enemy.
It shoudn't be questioned that comunis speech is bad, they're the enemy.
We're entering dangerous ground...
Clearly they are now responsible for content hosted on domains they register, since they've exhibited the ability and willingness to filter based on certain standards. Have fun with that, Google.
The internet has always been an open discussion forum of all ideas.
I dislike the idea of posting hate speech online just as much as the next, and in principle I agree with what GoDaddy and Google did here, however if you can cancel someone's domain over unapproved speech, what protections do others have with holding their domains when they speak ill of the government of otherwise? Restricting speech is a slippery slope, if you remove it for one nutjob (like GoDaddy and Google did here), however awful it might be, you're opening the door for the government to shut down other domains that are critical of them.
Is Hate Speech very specifically called out as an exception to freedom of speech? I'm curious what their rationale is here, and how easily others can link this case to shutting down other people's view points on the internet as well.
Would love to hear how this is or is not a slippery slope towards censorship. Thanks.
moox. for a new generation.
So much for net neutrality. This is more like dictatorship. Just because you don't agree with someone is not a reason to silence them.
Nobody is silencing them. They can still broadcast on the web, even without a domain name. They just need a stable IP/IPv6 address. DNS is a convenience, not a necessity.
I love how you were modded up and the GP was modded down. Classic millenial pot smoking safe space baby talk. Even my foolish enemies should be allowed to express themselves.
Does it not make sense to you people that these who express themselves in this manner are EXPOSING themselves for what they are which is a GOOD THING? I wonder some days if Mrs. Mash hands out modpoints to people who agree with her like old Halloween candy to the first grade class.
--Black Lifes Matter
I think it is high time for there to be a public domain name registrar that does not restrict people's rights to free speech. I dislike white supremecists, neo nazis, and their brethren but they have a right to speak their minds. I am Jewish and it might sound crazy that I am defending them but America should not be about free speech as long it is not inconvenient or offensive. If racists want to go around hooting and hollering like idiots, then it is their constitutional right to do so. Besides, by blocking and censoring these groups, they only become martyrs for their own cause, emboldened, and angered. Blocking their speech just gave them a huge publicity boost. Plus, these guys are like whack-a-mole. Block one and another pops up.
Which opens a fun can of worms. Google now indirectly supports every offensive site they're currently hosting.
In general terms, Google isn't an ISP (yes, I know they own some fiber, so to some extent that makes them ISP). They are a content provider. Net neutrality refers to the provisioning of priority for packets, and not permitting ISPs to prioritize certain traffic based on type and point of origin. It has nothing to do with content providers and hosting companies having policies that deem certain kinds of content as being inappropriate.
By your logic, if I have a web board, and I remove posts that violate the TOS my users agreed to upon signing up, somehow I'm violating net neutrality.
At least know the terms you're using. This isn't a net neutrality issue at all.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I hate to quote Game of Thrones, but...
"When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say." (Meme related)
This seems to be related to the Streisand Effect. And /pol/ has memes about how nearly everyone there now first went there to see for themselves what was so terrible that everyone condemned it.
My guess is that Google and GoDaddy have just delivered publicity and an endorsement the likes of which those guys couldn't in a hundred years have been able to purchase.
See that "Preview" button?
Classic (or perhaps deliberate) misunderstanding of our right to free speech. Yes, we must stand up for the rights of others we vehemently disagree with to say what they're gonna say. But no, nobody owes them a platform or a pedestal. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.
Hey, Windows users, there is no such thing as "forward" slash, there is only slash and backslash.
Open does not mean without limits.
Do you agree that Google should have limits? Or do you think they should provide domain services for ISIS recruitment websites including those that promote violence against others?
Then "open" doesn't mean "open", does it?
With the internet and the TLDs structured as they are, with government involvement in assigning TLDs to nations, giving control to ICANN, propping up telecoms, etc., and the law of the land being free-speech, I'd say certain registrars (.us, and probably .com) should not be able to revoke registration (or increase pricing to target specific domains) if something is not illegal.
If every .com registrar refuses to handle their domain, that effectively means their domain is seized.
What if the post office refused to carry your mail because you mailed out a communist manifesto?
What if AT&T refused to give you a land line because you called a politician and told them to ban weasels from your county?
What if the power company cut service to your home because you operate a HAM radio and broadcast your own smooth jazz renditions of pop songs?
"Toleration is not a moral precept."
In 1900, the idea that women were equal to men and deserved equal rights was unpopular. It took years of protests to persuade others to change the laws.
In 1940, the idea that Blacks were equal to whites and deserved equal rights was unpopular. It took years of protests to persuade others to change the laws.
in 1980, the idea that gays were equal to straits and deserved equal rights was unpopular. It took years of protests to persuade others to change the laws.
By saying that unpopular views should not be tolerated, you saying that you approve of beating those women, blacks, and gays to make sure they are silenced, and never able to persuade people that they deserve equal rights.
If you support beating women, blacks, and gays then YOU are just as much scum as the Nazis.
If you don't support suppressing those unpopular opinions, but support suppressing others - well, your views on governance match those of the Nazis and would find a home in Saudi Arabia. You're a petty tyrant, and you should be grateful that others tolerate you... or you'd quickly find yourself beaten and oppressed.
Should we allow ISIS to publish their hatred and call to violence as well
Yes.
can we agree that that "free speech" has limits?
No. The moment you limit any speech, you jeopardize all speech.
One person being intolerant of another intolerant person == two intolerant persons.
Sure. Just like a criminal firing a gun at a police officer and the police officer firing back " == two people firing guns". By your logic, if the cop simply refuses to engage, the criminal is suddenly neutralized.
You seem like someone for whom racism and sexism are mere philosophical phenomena, rather than things that impact your life in a profound, tangible way.
...all you want, but don't pretend you understand what Free Speech is about.
It's the most odious, most repellent, most hateful speech that we MUST protect. It doesn't mean that we listen politely, it doesn't mean that we must give it a fair listen at all.
But to shut it down completely? You're going to a dangerous, dangerous place.
-Styopa
What if Google discontinued registration for your website just because it's used to advocate the subjugation, terrorizing, and murder of "non-white" people?
One of these things is not like the others.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.
In another day and age, you would have justified deportation to the gulag with the exact same words.
Ah yes, the second classic - or intentional - misunderstanding of free speech. The right to free speech only applies to political speech and the government's attempt to suppress it. In a private context -- the case here -- there is no requirement for one party to provide another party with anything.
Nice try to put words in my mouth, but of course that not what I said or implied.
Hey, Windows users, there is no such thing as "forward" slash, there is only slash and backslash.
Free speech is a moral ideal. Google's "don't be evil" is so long gone... Sure it's a private company, and they can re-educate their employee as much as they'd like, but it doesn't make brainwashing moral.
Freedom of speech isn't absolute. Not in any country on Earth. Even the US has laws against some speech, like harassment, fraud and incitement.
Those are the bare minimum for a functioning society. Google goes a little further, but not much, by declining services to Nazis. Would you let BLM use your lawn to protest from if they asked? If you wouldn't, you are a hypocrite.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC