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.
Sad!
Support terrorism - expect nobody to help you.
See subject.
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...
Who the fuck registers domains with Google? Namecheap is the way to go.
See subject.
(Slashdot can't handle a subject of just ".ru". Sad.)
They want a war on a coward's terms. Give them a war on AMERICA's TERMS.
END THE NAZI FAGGOT SCOURGE.
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.
Maybe we're already closer than we thought.
The alt-right was all about getting the Islamist off the internet. Well the road to censorship is a one way downhill one
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.
fuck 'em
Politically driven DNS denial of service is going to lead to alternate DNS roots.
Looks like they're going to have to shopping for a registrar who's despicable enough to want their business now.
So what happens when all the major sites start clamping down on offensive speech? Does it just die off, or will it condense to the few places that still allow people to say whatever they want? Can we expect slashdot to become a hive of scum and villainy in the future because it gets left as one of the few places that still allows anonymous posting without having to worry about your comments being deleted.
You could always register your domain with DreamHost. But I doubt extremist content would pass their TOS.
Perhaps it's time for the USPS to implement a domain registration service that will insure viewpoint neutral service and foster open communication? We need a true public forum available to all and we seem to be losing this.
In the old days, one could go to the town square, get on their soap box, and speak their mind and be jeered, cheered, or both or even just ignored by those passing by.
Unfortunately, now access to the "town square" requires finding a domain registrar who won't impose their political views on their patrons -- much as if a gas station refused to sell gasoline to someone because the patron was going to use the gasoline to drive to a protest for an unpopular presidential candidate.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
Do we need this twice?
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
The only thing funnier than the idiotic comments being circulated by the alt-right ideologies is how vacuous the posters are. Total fail masters.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
nearlyfreespeech.net only has the following restrictions:
You may not upload, publish, or otherwise use the Services to make available any Content that:
violates the laws of the United States of America; or
you are contractually prohibited from distributing; or
is tortious under the laws of the United States of America; or
your distribution of which infringes upon the intellectual property rights of others; or
you otherwise do not have the legal right to distribute.
If you have a controversial website, they seem to be the hosts to go to. I have used them for years for non-controversial, low traffic sites, just because I like that they are pro-free speech. Even though I despise neo-Nazi idiots, I think having their views out there is better than not.
Physically standing in the town square also left you open to beatings. I am fully in favor of bringing Storm Front to the nearest square...
This is about open discussion. These people are promoting violence. They are praising Alex for killing peaceful protester. They have articles
On their site claiming she's a whore and a scourge on society because she isn't married with kids. They are saying she deserved to die.
That isn't discourse.
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.
Web hosts and registrars are now the de facto controllers of mass publication. They have greater ability to censor unwanted speech than any government. It's scary how this has become common place, and all that happens in response is an over-intellectualised debate between "it's censorship" and "it's not censorship because it's not government" and "it's their house so it's their rules".
We've arrived in an era when large companies can censor unwanted voices, and all that happens is it becomes a talking point for a day or two and then is forgotten about.
I wish we could hear from people who have actually gone to war to defend our right to free speech. I wonder how supportive they are of Google and GoDaddy deciding who's allowed to talk?
Your right to free speech effectively ends when you start killing people. Sorry, fuck right off if you want to protect a bunch of actual Nazis. We're America. We saved the world by killing Nazis, not be encouraging them to spread their propaganda and letting them murder because muh fweedoms.
Daily stormer are terrible human beings, I completely disagree with them in the strongest terms but isn't there some protection for this? If registrars can ban users for this what political issue or group is next?
The Pstn, water and electric providers can't cut service to their offices because of politics, shouldn't registrars be the same?
The Leftist idiots blocking these people are creating a bigger problem that will blossom into open warfare.
Let them rant, in other words.
The practice of restricting free speech, whether done as a private corporation or public government is a really slippery slope. Sometimes the act of censorship creates martyrs out of those being censored. It would be better if we do not look to the public domain for censorship. Let's practice some self-censorship. I chose not to visit websites that spew hate and revisionist history as I do not like them. If you don't like them either, then you should make that very same choice. However simply because material like this is offensive to you, does not mean it should be restricted or blocked for others. One of the benefits of allowing sites such as these to hem and holler about is that it remains out in the open and easily monitored. When you force groups to go underground, they're not as easily watched and monitored. It is easy to use these websites as teaching and research tools of how hate develops and how demographics can affect it.
Looks like CloudFlare doesn't care I guess... user@system:~$ dig dailystormer.com ns +short kirk.ns.cloudflare.com. jean.ns.cloudflare.com.
And those doing the beatings would be subject to prosecution and imprisonment in addition to civil suits and, possibly, death by the person being beaten defending themselves successfully and legally.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
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?
Canada is very similar to the USA, but it has hate speech laws, and draws the line legally in speech. Even though there is a line, it is very rare that it comes up or needs to be enforced. You'd learn a lot by looking into how Canada does its hate speech laws and its history, but keep in mind in Commonwealth countries the legal term is 'freedom of expression' not 'freedom of speech'.
In all, things are very similar here. There are still hate groups and white supremacy rallies, but it is much easier to prosecute the ringleaders when people incite hatred and violence in an obvious way. Things are pretty stable, and there is no slippery slope, just a less absolute free reign on free speech when it comes to extreme cases.
On the other hand, it seems from here that the US is much more strict on socially policing free speech: you're much more likely to lose your job there than here for what you say or do in public and in your own time.
However, if the US did things like Canada, it wouldn't have such interesting politics and debates. We're just so reasonable and boring up here it is hard to get anyone to care about anything!
This whole idea makes no sense. The internet is not a town square, it is a million private clubs for all kinds of different groups of people. You think you would be able to freely post on the Daily Stormer to rebut their hate speech? Hell no. The internet is actually anti-open-communication because people just go to the communities that they already agree with. Your town square ideal is more dead now than it has ever been and the internet is not bringing it back.
I just googled for "free speech quotes" and found this one-
“Censorship is to art as lynching is to justice.”
Henry Louis Gates Jr.
The problem I see is that somewhere along the line, the relationship between Free Speech and The Internet either got muddled, or was prevented from becoming unmuddled. I suspect Google has their rea$ons for the judgements they make, and actions they have the power to take regarding Speech on The Internet. That is a problem. When it comes to which speech can ethically be forcibly removed from The Internet, my own belief is that such judgements should soley come from government, not quasi-monopolists. Of course that's not where society is at the moment. I think it's very unfortunate and may be resulting in a far lower quality of life for humanity than we might otherwise enjoy. Obviously governments are plenty bad, but when it comes to the choice between being policed by an at least partially democratic government versus a private for-profit corporation, I'll take the government as my overlord any day of the week.
There is no such thing as free speech on the Internet. Fuck the Internet
I went on the site, it seems they have control again(url:httpswwwdailystormercomanglin-here-ive-retaken-control-of-the-site-the-daily-stormer-never-dies)... The article is still there too(https://www.dailystormer.com/heather-heyer-woman-killed-in-road-rage-incident-was-a-fat-childless-32-year-old-slut/)... You can't block these people man... that just just makes it harder to know what they are up too :/ Crazy Google. Maybe that is what Google want's? WTF are they thinking?
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.
You need to get up to date on reality. The last people who knew real Nazis are almost all dead now. It's just a word now. So is Hitler.
Step 1 - register the domain with a "Personalized" TLD ... is .hate available?
Step 2 - find a co-location company that will host the servers without a view of the content (try companies that co-locate porn servers)
Step 3 - set up web servers to host the content
Step 4 - upload the site content
Step 5 - set up DNS servers (2 required by RFQ) to point to new site
Step 6 - Profit!
Step 7 - be pwned and defaced within an hour of going on line
Step 8 - watch as servers go up in smoke from DDOS attacks
Step 9 rinse and repeat
Despicable speech is just as protected as popular speech. These idiots are potentially subject to civil defamation damages if they are claiming the victim is a whore (and appear to mean it literally, not figuratively) and some injured party can prove she was NOT a whore and that these nut jobs knew that (or, perhaps, reasonably should have known that(?)).
In the town square, there is no restriction that speech must be "discourse" as some AC defines it on /. in order for it to be protected speech. There can only be viewpoint neutral rules (such as no loudspeakers after 10PM or before 8AM or decibel limits or requirement for organizers providing sanitation facilities). Even some viewpoint neutral rules such as "no fires" have been found by some courts NOT to justify exclusion of expressive speech involving fire (such as burning an American flag).
Remember, the First Amendment is needed to protect unpopular speech -- rarely is popular speech suppressed.
Google and GoDaddy are certainly within their legal rights to refuse service to almost anyone (except because they are a member of a protected class). They could, for example (within their TOS), have shut down any websites promoting Bernie Sanders because their CEO preferred Hillary Clinton.
However, the effective migration of the function of the public town square to a privately controlled space controlled by the likes of GoDaddy and Google is alarming. Hence, my suggestion that the USPS could institute an alternative forum (at least in part) that IS protected by the First Amendment because the USPS is controlled by Congress and is effectively an arm of the US Government.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
The difference is that going to the town square required the person spewing hate speech to go out in public and face public ridicule. Anyone can set up countless web sites filled with entire alternate realities to reinforce their viewpoints, completely devoid of facts. And they can do it without ever having to look another human being in the eye. One nutjob in the town square looks like just one nutjob and is easy to ignore. One nutjob online can look like a massive movement that can entice vulnerable individuals who are ripe for radical indoctrination.
And yes, I would prefer it if the gas station would refuse to sell gasoline to guys in white hoods with a giant cross and lots of glass bottles and oily rags in the back of their pickup truck, assuming that it isn't clear that it's the pope making a recycling run. This goes way beyond unpopular political views, we're talking about people who use speech to incite violence against others. They're still free to go out into the town square, but I'm not obligated to give them a soap box and Google isn't obligated to give them a megaphone.
Maybe, but for those rare free speech absolutists who really are arguing Nazis should have a neutral DNS registrar available on free speech grounds (as opposed to the alt-right nuts we see here), there are, actually, rather a lot of DNS registrars, even if you remove the duplicates. The idea Stormfront cannot get someone to register their website is ludicrous. And frankly, if an organization is so terrible that they can't get one of the literally thousands of registrars to talk to them...
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
This is a diversion. They did the same thing with the rebel flag issue and a week later, gay marriage was passed federally. Except now, we have a republican president, Russian conspiracies, FCC nonsense, AI scares, Wiki Leaks, NASA funding issues, Dakota pipeline, etc., and all that we have gotten as news in the past week is neo-nazi, abortion, and sexist/agist fluff. When are protestors going to learn that they're their enemies' tools? That shit only works in the movies and most civil rights change occurred during a time when a determined person was feared rather than empathized. No one with intelligence and power to to truly change or ignore at their leaser is concerned with a generation that stumbles around a street, staring at a smart phone and posting to Facebook and Snap Chat every ten minutes just so their dumbasses can get extra credit for an ethics class.
I don't believe Google is a common carrier... I believe that is more targeted at the ISPs, not DNS registrars, hosting sites, etc.
One person being intolerant of another intolerant person == two intolerant persons.
Then there's the trend in our society to find as many new ways to be offended as possible and you end up compounding the problem.
My guess is that since as society begins treating the special groups we're trying to protect/defend as just normal people, those who's identity relies on fighting to protect those differences have to fight harder and harder to remain relevant. This ironically is a result of their success. Not being a racist/sexist doesn't make you special anymore*, it just means you're like pretty much everyone else. That's a *good* thing, please accept it and stop trying to create division among people just to selfishly keep your sense of purpose.
* There is still plenty of sexism and racism. My point is that it's now generally accepted that these things are bad. The 'convince people that it is bad' fight is won already, the key now is just to lead by example. People who are still racist/sexist nowadays are so by choice. Like flat-earthers, it's not for lack of information or people telling them they're wrong. You're not going to 'fix' them, just try your best not to be as stupid.
Mind the frickin' laser...
Web hosts and registrars are now the de facto controllers of mass publication. They have greater ability to censor unwanted speech than any government. It's scary how this has become common place, and all that happens in response is an over-intellectualised debate between "it's censorship" and "it's not censorship because it's not government" and "it's their house so it's their rules".
We've arrived in an era when large companies can censor unwanted voices, and all that happens is it becomes a talking point for a day or two and then is forgotten about.
I wish we could hear from people who have actually gone to war to defend our right to free speech. I wonder how supportive they are of Google and GoDaddy deciding who's allowed to talk?
Hashtag Home Servers Matter and the FCC knows it, and chooses to further the establishment (Google and GoDaddy being big players in it) status quo. And then there was that Hillary/Comey kerfluffle and Trump. Things that make you go HMMMM.....
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.
...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
Do you have a problem with ISIS recruitment websites, including those showing beheadings and calling for death to apostates?
The Daily Stormer is beyond offensive. It promotes violence and hatred. It's close to the proverbial yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Society does and should have limits to speech. We can't merely ban the actually blowing up of people with a bomb and stand by allowing people openly discussing and planning blowing up people with a bomb. Where that limit should be is debatable, that there should be limits isn't debatable.
SJW's, Antifa, Ultra-Liberal-Left-Wing-Nuts and similar groups don't deserve any tolerance because the don't give one. These groups would use liberal ideas only to spread their hatred or terrorism.
Now do you see why your argument falls apart?
Moron.
>Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.
I think it means exactly that.
Someone more clever than I could probably improve upon this.
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.
Well then get on a plane and yell out "I have a bomb and am going to blow this plane up in 5 minutes!" and tell us how that freedom from consequences works out for you.
It's freedom from consequences from the government, not freedom from consequences from everyone
Comment removed based on user account deletion
In the old days, one could go to the town square, get on their soap box, and speak their mind and be jeered, cheered, or both or even just ignored by those passing by.
And in the new days, you can still do this. The Internet is not a town square, nor is it necessary for wide distribution of ideas. You could: Write a book. Go on pubic access cable TV. Take out a newspaper ad. Wait, you say you'd have a hard time finding a publisher/cable tv station/newspaper willing to facilitate your hate speech? Why should the Internet be different?
Well, if we ever successfully depreciate DNS and make the internet truly peer to peer and symmetrical (up/down), the issue will be moot. Right now our ISPs are denying our right to host content ourselves, so yes while we remain dependent on others to do so, we need legislation to protect that right. We need to apply the 1st Amendment to their business. They have no right to discriminate against a paying customer over their content. Google and godaddy are "bakeries" that are violating our rights.
It is so sad to see the civil rights movement be completely usurped by the politically correctness of today's phony "liberals" who still cling to the democratic party.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Back into the darkest corners of the Internet where you belong.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The thing about the internet is that there is no public ground. Everything on the internet is someone's property. You cannot even connect to the internet without someone putting ToS in front of you. If we acknowledge that the internet is an essential or at least very important medium for public discourse, then we need to acknowledge that freedom to limit other people's access to the internet cannot be a thing.
Speech should be answered with speech, not with repression.
Anyway Cloudflare seems more than happy to host them. They host malware, too.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
"Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences." When did this become the new catchphrase of the internet to justify their doxxing? If you aren't free of consequences for speech then you have no freedom of speech. That's a fact.
Today I learned that Google is apparently a domain registrar as well.
Then why isn't the responding hatred from KKK, Nazis, male chauvinists, etc?
Why the double standard?
Seems like you have a theory of 'original hate'. Which was stupid the first time the Christians came around with that idea.
The Federalist papers were published under a pseudonym - to this day there is still some debate on who wrote some of them.
Somehow I doubt that those that wrote them, who were among the most influential Founding Fathers (Hamilton, Madison, and Jay), believed that non-anonymous speech was the only speech that should be protected.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
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.
We need an alt-DNS and just bypass google and their SJW nonsense.
If you aren't free of consequences for speech then you have no freedom of speech. That's a fact.
No, that's your opinion. If it's a "fact," then please cite a reference.
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.
Well, if we ever successfully depreciate DNS and make the internet truly peer to peer and symmetrical (up/down), the issue will be moot. Right now our ISPs are denying our right to host content ourselves, so yes while we remain dependent on others to do so, we need legislation to protect that right. We need to apply the 1st Amendment to their business. They have no right to discriminate against a paying customer over their content. Google and godaddy are "bakeries" that are violating our rights.
It is so sad to see the civil rights movement be completely usurped by the politically correctness of today's phony "liberals" who still cling to the democratic party.
Boy, you've got fucked-up ideas about "rights" and the 1st amendment. This is why governenment should be taught in schools.
It is not moral to force anyone to broadcast speech someone else has made. It is not moral to force someone to run their business in the way you want. Capitalism and the free market provide you with an adequate means of expressing your displeasure: don't buy their product, or work for their company. Your true fascist ideals are showing, you want the freedom to use violence to force others to do your bidding.
If you are fine with people forcing Google to broadcast someone else's hate speech, you should be fine with me coming on your property at 4am and screaming loudly about you having sex with chickens. If you respond in any way, you are silencing my free speech. If you are fine with forcing Google to act in a certain way, you should be fine with me forcing you to run your household in a certain way.
Either you believe in private property, or you're a communist. Or, I guess you could just be a garden variety hypocrite,
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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.
Here is the problem with your point of view.
Today, you think future elections will go differently and a more Bernie-like person will be in office with a liberal government and every site taken down deserves it.
It's also possible that Trump isn't enough and the next round will be farther right.... and when your speech is silenced, and your job disappears when you try to speak, and someone comes take you away in the night, you will regret allowing someone else being silenced.
It is short sighted to think that these tools silencing others will never be used against you. Like nuclear weapons, it's better to figure out how to not need to use them at all. If you can't show that the crap posted on that web site is wrong with a logical, reasoned argument and showing a better way then how would anybody be convinced you are right at all?
How is it alarming? The town square is still open. You still are free to find some other registrar and/or hosting provider. Google and GoDaddy have no more moral obligation to host The Daily Stormer than I have an obligation to let a Neo-Nazi lecture me in my living room. I don't see how Congress has any obligation to create a forum for the Neo-Nazis either. Congress is restricted by the constitution from interfering with the Neo-Nazis lawful use of their free speech, but nowhere in the Constitution is it required that Congress give them a helping hand.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It's well know that Krispy Kreme is a Black Panthers front operation. Hell, they lure the police in with free coffee.
It is alarming if, in fact, it is particularly difficult for such organizations to find a registrar that will accept them so they can gain access to the new public square. As long as it's easy (which, I would agree, it likely still is) there is not a problem.
However, by a (quasi)government organization offering an open viewpoint neutral gate (at least as regards to DNS) to the public square, it would insure that one day we don't discover that the entire square is surrounded by gates which a few private companies control and who say: "Sure, you can speak freely in the international public square -- IF you can get in and, sorry, our gate is closed to you and all the owners of the other gates have also closed their gates to you".
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
The Left is all on board for making the internet accessible to all because "internet is a right", but is totally okay with Google hijacking a Nazi domain, even though the group can't register a domain without going through a commercial reseller. The only thing worse than a racist, is a scumbag who ethics are on sale to a bankrupt ideology that doesn't give a crap about equality.
If your views are so toxic that no one will do business with you, well then that's the marketplace at work. And I still don't buy that the government has even the tiniest bit of obligation to offer you a helping hand.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Is there such a thing as a decentralized DNS? I suppose it can be done through Tor, Freenet, or something (is Freenet still a thing?).
It's not that I agree with the sites that have been taken offline but if they can be taken out because "people don't like it" then what guarantee do you have that your own sites won't be taken out for any random reason? This is not a good precedent.
Maybe Tucows decide they hate geeks and Slashdot doesn't deserve the privilege of DNS. Boom, gone! Just like that and with no recourse. That's fucked up! There should be laws that protect DNS as a critical function.
mod parent up, ToS enforcers have their rea$ons...
Suddenly, you're a proponent a free market ? [sic]
Yes but in Canada their are Human Rights Commissions whose purpose is to 'prosecute' wrongthink so we don't have to bother with such outdated concepts as "courts" or "laws".
Until recently many of these commissions had near 100% 'conviction' rates and while, to the best of my knowledge, they could not impose any jail time they could in fact bankrupt the accused. They are pretty much the definition of kangaroo courts where 'truth' is not considered a defense.
The HRCs in Canada were so bad that one lawyer (a former Canadian HRC member) was responsible for over half the hate speech complaints and in some cases was shown to actually have commented on the sites he complained about under a pseudonym to help drum up more racist comments to then complain about.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
Depreciate? Is DNS for sale at a lower cost than it was bought for?
In the free market of ideas the best ideas always win.
If your ideas require an artificial monopoly via censorship to stay afloat then your ideas are weak and deserve to die.
Survival of the fittest.
I think it means exactly that.
Then you are mistaken. It only means that the government can't censor you. Your friends and family could turn their backs on you in response to hate speech, for instance. Your employer might fire you for being racist or misogynist. Protesters might show up outside your house to alert your neighbors to the fact that you're an enormous douchebag. Any of these things count as "consequences", and "freedom of speech" shields you from exactly none of them.
Is that really so hard to understand?
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
Wait, they shut down a Nazi website and you think that makes them evil? What are you, some kind of Nazi?
So when #PresidentTweety says "on many sides" and "not Donald Trump, not Barack Obama", it was just more pathological lying. No surprise.
YES, DONALD TRUMP. The racists LOVE you and you LOVE them. You, Donald Trump, YOU HATE AMERICA.
The carefully scripted apology General Kelly forced Trump to read is too little, too late. We don't want a hostage video. Trump is trying to pretend he's being honest because he's such an obvious liar that no sane person can think he is anything but a YUGE pathological liar.
So you think you're not a liar because no one can believe a word you say and they must know that by now? WTF?
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
There's no point guaranteeing freedom *of* speech, no country can prevent that. It's freedom *after* speech we want. If you're correct that in it not being guaranteed by the US constitution, then I don't understand why people are so proud of that piece of paper in the first place.
It's National Socialists vs International Socialists.
They're all socialists, and they all want control. That's what the fight is about.
Hey guys and gals! Just want to pass along my props. I don't always agree with you, but hey, it's a free country. Thanks for fighting the good fight and helping to keep the Internet free and open. For every Google that wants to censor your right to be heard, ten thousand Zieg Heils! are born. Awesome work, dudes. Let's keep the Internet free and uncensored!
It's nowhere near on the same plane as ISIS websites. Your assertion is really a stretch.
Citation Please. Hyperbole is a tool best used in moderation. I don't think your use of it here helps the persuasiveness of your arguments.
ToS vs Free Speech matters. The Status Quo is Not Good Enough. Encourage this debate, don't write it off. It matters. A lot.
No it just means the government won't send a death squad to your house at 2am because you said something.
If someone else kills you for your words that has nothing to do with the first amendment, that is just murder and it's already illegal.
... for reference, see Paula Deen wherein TOS says (paraphrase):
You fuck with our revenue stream, we'll can your ass.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Do you have a problem with ISIS recruitment websites, including those showing beheadings and calling for death to apostates?
They should have a site, and we should have everyone watch those videos so they can see what ISIS is really about - the killing of innocent people.
It's close to the proverbial yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
The court has long retracted that argument. Not to mention the guy they applied this rule to was distributing anti-war fliers. Source.
Exactly!
What happened is horrible but why doesn't he media decry black lives matter racists or radical Islamic terrorizes or any of the other non white hate groups? Seems they are kn a witch hunt rounding up everyone who's white heterosexual Christian etc for their trophy wall. Hate it hate, don't protect any of the haters even if the target of their hatred is white.
The right to free speech only applies to political speech
Here's the catch, though. "U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement should round up all the Muslims and deport them" is political speech. "Police should have broader powers to use lethal force on (non-white) criminals" is political speech. "Because all Jews are members secret organization that's bent on world domination, they should be prohibited from holding public office" is political speech.
It's repugnant, it's horrible, it's flat out wrong -- but it's political speech. It's advocating that the government enact particular policies -- which, if "political speech" has any meaning, should count as political speech. They're policies that most reasonable people would reject out of hand, but it's still advocating a political policy. I'm pretty sure that if you looked at The Daily Stormer (I haven't and have no desire to), you could find similar such "political speech" therein.
The danger is that when you say "oh, these viewpoint on governmental policies are repugnant and don't count as political speech" you start to play a dangerous game about where you draw the line. And history tells us that the line drawers are rarely end up on the side of the general public -- even if they start out that way.
and the government's attempt to suppress it.
The problem is that the role of "government" tends to get fuzzy when the government cedes power to private citizens.
"Oh, Guido here? He's not part of the government, he's just a concerned citizen who wishes to express disagreement with what you said. We in the government respect the principle that 'Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences', so we fully support Guido's right, as a private citizen, to disagree with you by judicious application of a baseball bat to your knees. You are perfectly free to reciprocate the gesture, provided you can get past Rocco, Vincenzo and Anthony, also private citizens, and also expressing their disagreement with what you say by a headlock, a kidney punch, and brass knuckles, respectively."
Sure, you can raise objections to the use of violence in this example, but that's only illustrative of what happens when government cedes power (here the right to inflict physical violence) to private entities. You can imagine other scenarios which don't involve violence, such as a group launching a smear campaign against you, or someone purchasing any company which employs you (or your wife or your children) and then firing you (with bad references). Or buying up your mortgage and turning the screws. Or buying any apartment complex where you live and systematically evicting you (with bad references), or buying surrounding properties and boxing you in ... I could go on. If you're the big and powerful, there's a lots of ways to fuck with someone which don't require physical violence.
"But that's illegal!" you may say. Well, yes, that's the point. "Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences" but we realize that large entities throwing around their power - even their power as private citizens - to harass people they don't like isn't good, and we prohibit it. Government failing to take an active role in protecting citizens with particular viewpoints is tantamount to the government implicitly suppressing said speech.
Black Lives Matter is just as a racist group as neo-nazi groups. Will Google black them too? Hell the name ALONE is racist! ALL LIVES MATTER not just black lives. I am sick and tired of all racism being pointed at white people especially white males! ALL racism is bad! Including REVERSE racism! it's a hate crime when a white person beats up a black person, but not when a black person beats up a white person. REALLY? SERIOUSLY? WTF is wrong with society!!!!! ANY race beating up someone of another race purely because of that persons race is a HATE CRIME PERIOD!
All lives matter - PERIOD! White, Black, Hispanic, Oriental whatever!
As someone from a German decent I abhor neo-nazi rhetoric and white supremacy rhetoric - Adolf Hitler was a lunatic and a murderer - period! And YES the Holocaust DID happen! While stationed in Germany with the US Military I visited Auschwitz that horrid place DOES exist - and YES Jews were unconscionably MURDERED there by the thousands! This kind of thing MUST NOT happen EVER again!
Neo-nazi's, BLM, the KKK, La Raza, these are ALL racist groups! We must ALL speak out against them ALL, not just the white racist groups but ALL racist groups!
So WAKE THE FUCK UP everyone! Especially the FUCKED up Republican, Democratic and Liberals! Racism exists in ALL races not just white races!
I have visited many countries in this world and all the regular people in those countries are good people I never met anyone I didn't get along with (well except for the French in Paris - they hated American for some reason) - I LOVED the French outside of Paris - wonderful people! especially in northern France! I even partied with Russian Romanians on New Years Eve - what a fun bunch of people!!!!!! And the Russian vodka they brought was far better than ANYTHING we get in the US! One of these days I want to visit Russia itself. Europe was a fun place - people are really nice and friendly. I really enjoyed my time in South Korea - great people and OMG the food is SOOOO good there! If you have NEVER been to South Korea and eaten in their restaurants you are missing out! "Subway Surfing" in Seoul Korea is fun if you haven't tied it - you need to!
If you really want to know about another race - INTERACT with them! You wold be surprised how many people of other races are nice people. You can learn allot from them and they from you. And I would say the BEST way to interact with them is over food! Have lunch or dinner with them - eat THEIR kind of food. What do you have to lose? Sure you may find some kinds of food you don't like or can't because of allergies. I will admit, I had a hard time with Afghan food. But enjoyed the conversation over lunch.
The Truth is a Virus!!!
if tjeu want a glimmer of hope of.getting back in then they havr to prove they didnt violate the ToS. legal mumbo jumbo, but still legally enforceable whem there attention is brought yo bear.
i would say 1 of those 3 has qualities that invalidate it, namely truthiness. and all of them fall i to hate speech as they advocate changes to long held constitutional principles. but maybe im just not a literal interpeter. its all a game of whack a mole...hit google for doing wrong, err see my ToS so gov jas no power, hit gov.for not fighting it well then they are dictating free choice of a business. the only uswful way to progress on these philosophical questions is not to be one dimensional. edit: nothing, my thumbs are too.big.
Bingo. There is truly despicable content out on the internet which has no value, but censorship is a dangerous route to go down, and not something you do arbitrarily with things you do or don't agree with. Google's decision would be a lot more respectable if they would put forth a policy, but they aren't doing that. Personally I think there is stuff we need to keep off the internet, child pornography, beastiality, and homosexual pornography has no place on the American internet, and I think the majority of the country could agree with that. Google may not agree with that, they may be more focused on political speech, but that's always been a dangerous route for societies to go down, and Google can be taken care of. Any company that gets too big can be brought to heel. The government has plenty of tools for breaking apart companies which have forgotten their place in society.
I know you said you weren't, but you kinda do sound like an interpeter. Or an small one at that.
It's close to the proverbial yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
"Holmes wrote in Abrams that the marketplace of ideas offered the best solution for tamping down offensive speech: "The ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas -- that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out."" - From The Atlantic.
we just entered the Twilight Zone®
This is why governenment should be taught in schools.
Indeed! You are a perfect example of its absence!
Hosting services, ISPs, etc. must be made content neutral or taken over. No discrimination allowed
Then arrest them for inciting violence and posing credible threats to human life. It comes down to being able to say "I think all jews should be killed" and not being able to say "join me in killing jews" one is a opinion which you can say the other is a threat to many peoples lives which laws exist to deal with them.
I've never visited the site, but I must say that I've seen the far left crying wolf so much lately that I just figured this was more of the same. If, however, what you say is true, that the site authors were posting inflammatory stories and inciting actual violence, then I totally agree that it should be shut down.
I think that most from the centre and right would feel the same way I do, and they too have probably jumped to the conclusion that the accusations levelled at this site are exaggerated. That's the problem with crying wolf, when you have something truly awful to cry about, you won't be heard (by the right). Assuming, of course, that you are portraying reality.
> 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.
There is no law preventing these people from starting their own domain registrar and allowing this kind of behaviour. They are currently registering their domains with private companies who are against this kind of behaviour/activity. Should that bother their right to free speech, they're welcome to go and start their own alt-right registrar, or move to Tor where no one can censor them.
I don't see how any court could rule that a private company is restricting their right to free speech. Private companies are perfectly within their rights to deny someone service (e.g. "fire the customer") and this is what GoDaddy and Google have chosen to do. While you may find it unsavoury, there is nothing illegal about their actions, nor are they restricting someone's right to free speech.
And it is protected, but the Google case isn't a First Amendment issue so the point is moot. If you want a digital equivalent of the town square, we're not talking about fully anonymous speech anymore. In the town square, one person cannot pretend to be a thousand, a person in California can't pretend to be in Boston, and even a masked individual can be unmasked by fairly trivial means (noting distinguishing features or just following them until they take off the mask). Trusting the digital equivalent to the government or an agent of the government means also trusting them to verify the identities of every user. Because otherwise, it would just be a bunch of Russians paid to spread propaganda, like every other message board. Even if the public-facing side is anonymous, the back end would have to contain all identity info in the hands of a government-friendly entity.
The thing is, the analogy just doesn't fit. The Internet has never been a town square, it's a loose confederation of bulletin boards, publications, channelized broadcast feeds, and person-to-person communications on a new medium. What all of these have in common is that they only work on an infrastructure that someone has to maintain. That maintenance includes rules for use. And when maintaining the infrastructure becomes more trouble than it's worth, it goes away.
Bringing it back to the town square, even that requires maintenance. And so there are rules limiting what you can bring onto it and what you can do while you're there. And then someone's "speech" runs into these rules because it involves seizure-inducing strobe lights, blaring sirens in the middle of the night, or incitements to violence. When they get shut down for breaking the rules, they cry foul and sue. If it happens enough, people just avoid the town square and/or it gets shut down for safety reasons. And so we're left with little more than curious relics like the various Speakers' Corners scattered around the world. The town square is long gone and the Internet had nothing to do with it.
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.
You do realize they were kicked off the internet for writing a disrespectful article about a someone killed while marching with antifa, right? This isn't a slippery slope, this is reaching the bottom of the slope and is very, very scary.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
The way I see this, the internet companies could be trying to trip up the FCC's current Anti-Net Neutrality stance.
Now the FCC has a choice, regulate internet service providers (and that includes hosting and domain registration providers) according to Net Neutrality guidelines, or don't.
If Net Neutrality doesn't apply, well, then internet companies are perfectly free to shut down any website they deem fit, or at least refuse to host/carry their content, their DNS registration or issue them SSL certificates or otherwise do business with them.
You do realize they were kicked off the internet for writing a disrespectful article about a someone killed while marching with antifa, right? This isn't a slippery slope, this is reaching the bottom of the slope and is very, very scary.
Oh, puh-leeze. Restrictions on free speech are only an issue when it is government dictating or suppressing political speech. This is a situation where a private ISP is choosing not to have a relationship with a private customer. Google owes the fascist cucks exactly squat. Not slippery. Not scary. Plenty more ISPs and registrars that cater to the underbelly.
You want slippery and scary? Look at the story where Orange45 is trying to get all the records from one ISP to identify all users of a website and what content each user saw.
Hey, Windows users, there is no such thing as "forward" slash, there is only slash and backslash.
They have the right to speak, but not he right to be free of consequences.
If they abuse their privileges by spreading hate then private companies and registrars have every right to withdraw those privileges.
If you are free of consequences, then your speech means nothing and hence it doesn't matter whether you have free speech or not. When people communicate by speech, they expect consequences. They hope that the salt will be passed, or that the Uber driver will take them to the airport, or that the person on the other end of the line will add HBO to their cable subscription. Maybe they hope to impress their boss or please their significant other. All of these things are consequences.
You're saying that you should be able to pick and choose your consequences. That's not how the world works.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
At a certain level no I do not have a problem with letting anyone connect. For one thing we get a lot of intelligence by keeping these sites up. It's very telling to see who posts there, what they say, and how they related to each other. That' one of the reasons that the U.S. government doesn't try harder to get the Islamist sites shut down.
I've sure the police have got a plethora of great back story and possibly even evidence from James Fields' browser history. If he's charged with a federal hate crime I'm betting a warrant for his search history and phone records will reveal even more useful information.
Da-Nold! Da-Nold!
Your big fans, the KKK and other White Supremacist groups, want to let you know what a great job you are doing! Placing blame for violent protests by White Supremacists on "all sides", that was brilliant!
The KKK says Thank You, Da-Nold! You are the Best! In fact they might say you are a Wizard! Even a Grand Wizard!!
Explain, in detail, bakers being forced to make cakes against their beliefs again. You only have equivelencies as your foundation given that context.
In general I agree freedom of speech can have consequnces..... Ie spew crap and people can react.
However as it relates to to the use of the internet to express oneself I think we should consider it a utility.
For example should the power company refuse to provide electricity to people for there views
Should grocery stores refuse to sell you food?
In other words where does it stop and who decides and do we as a society want to lay the groundwork for mass thought policing
This is the first time in a long time I've seen such robust, pertinent, intelligent, AND interesting discussion in the comment section. No matter which side you're on, well done. It's nice to see discussion that, as far as I've read right now, has remained coherent.
If you're not free from the consequences you don't have freedom of speech. It's pretty simple. Otherwise "free speech" means nothing. In North Korea they are free to speak, until they are put to death for it.
the counter to bad speech should be better speech, not censorship