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.
Domain registration is not the same thing as hosting. Once the DNS is politicized, people will need to have uncensored DNS as an alternative to censored DNS. The people who own the censored DNS will do what they can, technically and politically, to ban the uncensored DNS.
Again, it doesn't matter what you think. This has been ruled on by the courts. Google has already used this power, for instance, to take down botnet C&C domains. The question is only whether the domain falls into something that is covered by the law, and it pretty clearly does. What they did wrong was specifically target an individual with their hate speech, which is also defamation and not legally protected.
The Pope considered capitalism to be terrorism against humanity. And judging from the comments that follow that article, there are quite a few others who do so as well.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Yes, actually, it is. Nazis deserved to be silenced, and more.
Toleration is not a moral precept. It's a peace treaty. it's an agreement to live and let live...but when you are part of a group that explicitly calls for the destruction of other human beings because of their race, you are breaking that peace treaty, and should be dealt with force, if necessary. Fuck this guy.
https://extranewsfeed.com/tole...
Censorship doesn't only mean that some information is made completely inaccessible. Even just obstructing access to information, to make it more difficult to get at that information, is an act of censorship.
Perhaps that means putting blank ink over written text, like in the case of a document.
Perhaps that means distorting the pixels, like in the case of an image or video recording.
Perhaps that means distorting the sound waves, like in the case of an audio recording.
Perhaps that means preventing its domain name from being registered or resolving, like in the case of a website.
Perhaps that means hiding a comment from the default view, like in the case of discussion on a website like Slashdot or Reddit.
Making content more difficult to access is censorship.
Possibly, but it'd be a cold day in hell before the majority of Internet users decide to reconfigure their DNS servers because they can't access websites that tell them blacks are subhuman and Jews are secretly running the world.
Trump won because a significant number of people on the right refused to listen to liberals who were trying to warn them that he was far right, not because they supported neo-nazism. Even on Slashdot, which has become a bit of an alt-right support group lately, discussing issues like immigration regularly devolves into Trump supporters asserting they didn't think he was opposed to immigrants in general, just those who {broke the rules}/{were taking jobs away from HWAs}/etc.
So don't take Trump's election as evidence that suddenly the entire country is marching in Virginia waving swastikas. Nazism and its offshoots are still considered by the vast majority of Americans as utterly evil, and they're certainly not going to go out of their way to hear Nazi voices.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Is Hate Speech very specifically called out as an exception to freedom of speech?
Here's the thing, Hate speech is not actually codified in law, unlike freedom of expression.
I live in the UK, you'll never be charged with "hate speech", hate speech and hate crimes are a catch all label used by the media, if you're charged with what the Daily Mail would call a "hate crime" you'll be given a specific charge by the court which is usually less offensive to the type of mouth breather that reads the Daily Mail. Usually its a crime like assault, vandalism or harassment that specifically and maliciously targets a protected class (I.E. race, gender, political affiliation, religion, et al.). The "hate" isn't a crime, you can be as hateful and bitter as you like. The crime is the crime, a hateful motivation is a modifier for a harsher penalty.
However this explanation makes too much sense and is not likely to get the knickers of the Daily Mail/Fox News crowd into a knot.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
You could provide some examples of how these sites are encouraging violence and murder.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The point is more that this same argument can be used with many other reasonings.
There's nothing dangerous about recognizing that allowing voice to political dissidents and showing improper information about the Tienanmen square will promote violence and extremism.
Except this case we applaud google for not taking this instance.
This may be an absurd hyperbole, but should illustrate the point.
I don't agree with the opinion or agenda of neo-nazis, but unlike Google I defend their right to have and express one.
What Google is continuing to do is blatant radical left-wing peecee censorship/silencing of any alternative opinions.
It seems highly ironic to me that Google take the stance of being strongly against naziism yet take a notably similar approach to censoring freedom of speech.
You're already doomed then. Free Speech—even in America—is and always has been a limited right.
(Exceptions to free speech in America.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And on top of that, being intolerant of intolerance is entirely consistent. It is necessary for a tolerant society to push back against that which would undermine it.
(Tolerance is not a moral absolute.) https://extranewsfeed.com/tole...
(Paradox of Tolerance)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So no, we don't have to let hateful organisations say whatever they want; the act of speaking such things is itself a kind of violence to our society. This doesn't mean that we should ban speech that makes us uncomfortable, or is unpopular. It DOES mean that speech that implicitly or explicitly advocates for genocide or violence is not worth protecting and is in fact speech that we should be actively attempting to limit by whatever means we can.
"Not every peace is better than the war it prevents." There's a certain peace to permitting all speech, even the worst kind of speech, but it's not worth it.
walk down to the town square and let everyone know what I think.
You can't even do that anymore. The "town square" is now a private mall development and political speech is prohibited by their terms of service. And it doesn't even matter that public tax dollars helped fund the mall development.
I get the standard pedantic line that "freedom of speech" is freedom from government prohibition on speech, but I think the increasing privatization of speech "platforms", whether they be Internet oligopolies or the domination of public space by private corporations, is a real threat to the principal of free speech.
When the public arena for speech is functionally controlled by private entities, does the protection from government censorship really mean much? Can we say we even have "free speech"?