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.
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.
I missed where the government was doing anything to restrict these Nazis speech.
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.
We already are on dangerous ground. This is a step away from it. Nobody is going to start censoring capitalists or communists unless they too start marching with torches yelling Heil Trump and committing acts of domestic terrorism.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
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.
We're entering dangerous ground...
First they came for the Nazis, and I did not speak out because I was not a Nazi ...
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.
Since I already live in a country without freedom of speech (Sweden) and have seen and had the need to express my opinion I've all the time been for it even if that meant Islamists were free to express their opinions too.
I think the defense should be in liberal constitutions and protection of liberties, not in banning things.
And we know at-least for now that the socialists/globalists/anti-whites won't get banned so ..
Banning things doesn't even achieve what they claim it defends. Some claim it's "protecting democracy" but it of course not, it's ruining democracy, others it's needed to protect freedom of speech, but it's outlawing it so .. no.. Just no.
It's like nuking someone to protect against bombing ..
Common carrier status has been lost
That phrase does not mean what you think it means. Google is perfectly within their rights to do this. Research the Communications Decency Act.
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it -Evelyn Beatrice Hall/Patrick Henry/Voltaire et al
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!
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
We're entering dangerous ground...
First they came for the Nazis, and I did not speak out because I was not a Nazi ...
First they came for the psychopathic serial killer cannibals and I did not speak out because.... who the hell am I kidding, those folks are pure evil.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
This has nothing to do with Net Neutrality.
It is their servers, they can choose what to have on it and what to delete. Because of a slew of laws that may or may not make the information holder liable for for the content. It is safer to take off what would be considered dangerous.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
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...
You have a right to not be censored by the government. You have no right to not be censored by other citizens.
Don't be discouraged, you can still belong to the Klan and be a neo-Nazi.
Just don't expect most of society to look the other way.
And Christians have killed more than those two combined. Try to have a point next time.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
it's likely you wouldn't be posting this if google took down a pro gay rights site for being 'indecent' for proper christian consumption.
This is actually far worse.
If the government takes action against you, you have due process and the right to sue them. While the courts can and do get things wrong from time to time, most judges at least make an effort to be thoughtful in their decisions. The Constitution protects your freedoms and you can be confident that someone will at least hear your case.
With the case of Google, they're responding to public outrage and making a business decision. They wouldn't turn away business unless they believed it would be harmful to them, in this case due to the possibility of bad publicity. However, public outrage is not restrained like the government is, and it is far more erratic. You may have some resource through Google's terms of service, but most companies place few restrictions on what they can do and include language allowing them to change the terms at their discretion. You probably can bring a civil case against Google or another business, but you don't have the Constitution to protect your rights.
This is a slippery slope. Once a website gets removed like this, people will expect the same thing to happen again under similar but perhaps a little less egregious circumstances. Public outrage isn't based on logic and reason, but on emotion and knee-jerk reactions. It's very inconsistent, as well.
Consider that many of the Ferguson protests were organized on social media. Although most of the protesters were peaceful, those that were not inflicted lots of damage on those who had no direct role in the killing of Michael Brown. Furthermore, the evidence strongly supports that the killing of Michael Brown was lawful, which is why the grand jury chose not to indict Darren Wilson on any charges. There was no crackdown on the protests being organized on social media. There was no logic and reason to the violence, first due to outrage over the killing of Michael Brown, then the decision of the grand jury not to indict the police officer responsible for the killing. Do you really want to trust the incredibly erratic public outrage to have a significant role in restricting freedom?
Google isn't turning away business for benevolent reasons. They're turning away this business because they believe continuing to host the site would lead to the loss of other business. It's based on the anticipated public outrage to hosting the site.
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.
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.
Are you trying to equate white supremacists with unionists and Jews? They're not the same. The KKK were Americas first domestic terrorist organization.
If the poem had started "First they came from the terrorists..." then it would have ended "...and everyone was pretty happy to have that dealt with."
Google or any sufficiently big corporation controlling data flow can be even more dangerous than the government.
This has nothing to do with Net Neutrality.
I do hear folks on here frequently asking for ISPs to be granted common carrier status. If that were to happen, would Google/GoDaddy still be allowed to do this?
If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
Except that they wouldn't, because to any normal human being with more than two neurons to rub together, it's patently obvious that badmouthing an innocent woman that was premeditatedly murdered by a white supremacist is not even remotely similar to website promoting equal rights.
Although, yes, if such a site would be brought down, there would most certainly be an outcry, because that would in fact be morally wrong.
Bigots of course, would disagree with that statement. To them, being cruel and hateful to people who haven't hurt anyone else and just want to live their lives in peace, is perfectly acceptable.
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
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?
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.
they need to start asking "What do you intend to use this domain for?"
Nope. They just give you the benefit of the doubt until you fuck up publicly enough that Google finds out about it. This is now, and has been for a very long time, how the internet works. It is the same reason Google can take down domains that host C&C servers for botnets.
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.
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.
I'm sure that was a joke. At least, my immediate response to it was to burst into laughter.
... the joke being that the poem it's referring to was written about the Nazis. The they in "First they came for the Socialists..." were the Nazis. But inserting "Nazis" in the place of "Socialists", I think it's meant to point out the absurdity of Nazis and other white supremacists pretending to be the victims. They're the victimizers.
...by that definition.
The definition given was "Domestic terrorism in the United States consists of incidents confirmed as terrorist acts. ... carried out by U.S. citizens or U.S. permanent residents.
So yeah. Pretty obvious definition. If any of those groups commits a confirmed act of terrorism, then yes, they should be considered domestic terrorists.
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.
Are you trying to equate white supremacists with unionists and Jews? They're not the same. The KKK were Americas first domestic terrorist organization.
To be fair you could argue that the Boston Tea Party was an act of domestic terrorism, as well as the tarring and feathering of British officials since the Colonies were not yet in a state of open warfare. Don't forget the Mormons out West, too. But yes, the KKK are and definitely were domestic terrorists, just arguably not the first ones.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Your right to speak does not entail my support or even my facilitation of said right. I am under no obligation to support you or provide any means for you to broadcast your speech.
We aren't even talking about you not being able to use the internet to broadcast your speech, all this is is a translation service between IP and DNS that is rejecting its assistance in the Nazi-Group's attempt to voice their opinion.
Not to mention that the only entity that has to honor freedom of speech is the government. I can, at any time I like, disallow you to speak AT ALL on my property. And that includes my "virtual property".
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
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
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.
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.
I detest these arguments because it literally ignores the dynamic nature of law, society, and basically how humans function in general. Life is a slippery slope bud it's just how it works. The reason that capitalist speech isn't ranking among Nazi speech is because people can show widely the public value of it over Nazi speech. Nazi speech literally has zero value to the public. There might come a day when the same becomes true for capitalism or for any other given topic. The entire point is that it's up to society to ensure that doesn't happen. I don't see massive droves of folks coming out of the woodwork to protest this move by Google which is a pretty good indicator that there close to zero people who actually value Nazis. So be there censorship or not, if society shuns your topic, it become a topic that eventually will get called the enemy. That's not dangerous ground, that's just how being human beings works. But of course, we're not the most logical race ever so perhaps being human is the dangerous thing here.
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.
Even my foolish enemies should be allowed to express themselves.
Sure. But Google is a private company, not the U.S. Government, and they don't have to do any such thing if it's in violation of their Terms of Service, which if the Wihte Supremacist group didn't read first and agree to abide by, then that's not on Google. I'm sure they can find some scumbag webhost that literally doesn't care what they're hosting so long as the bills are paid on time.
Let me know when you manage to get your grandmother to access facebook by typing in the IP.
Also, sometimes the IP isn't enough. Try typing in the IP of your website on a shared hosting service.
"Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
We are a society. Government, people, corporations are all participants of society and if we as a society value things like freedom then it is the duty and responsibility of every member of society to protect freedom even if you disagree. When large segments of the population and society advocate censorship governments won't be far behind. See the ACLU civil suit to the Charlottesville revoking their permit to assemble.
From yours and others comments we should hand all power to corporations to create a slave state because at least it isn't the government's boot I have to lick.
Google goes a long, long way to protect freedom of speech. Far further than most companies.
That blog that started GamerGate is still up on Blogger (owned by Google). They didn't take it down, even though it's a vile personal attack that lead to years of harassment and abuse. They didn't de-list Daily Stormer or any other hate filled site that didn't break the law from their search engine.
But that site violates their terms of service. Look how much shit Twitter gets for not ruthlessly applying the letter of the ToS immediately and absolutely to every tweet. Now Google does it to a right wing site and they are the worst censors in history.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Yes, it is. There is no such thing as hate speech only free speech. Every court case tried has failed and has always upheld free speech.
Neo-Nazis are terrorists. Al Qaeda are terrorists. Some Christians are Neo-Nazis. Some Muslims are Al Qaeda. See how that works? Do you really think all Christians are terrorists?
I love how you were modded up and the GP was modded down.
Maybe because the GP made less sense than the post that was modded up?
Classic millenial pot smoking safe space baby talk.
None of those words mean anything to the rest of us.
Even my foolish enemies should be allowed to express themselves.
Nobody is stopping them from expressing themselves. They agreed to some terms of service, and violated those terms of service.
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?
We know what a Fascist is, and we know what Nazism is. There was a thing last century where we got to know them and the downsides of their philosophy in good enough definition for the average person to make a call on how to react to Neo-Nazism. Maybe do some research.
If you accept the terms of service, you can't complain when your domain is seized after you violate them. You should find a registrar with terms you agree with before you host your domain with them.
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.
Well, we once had a policy of, "The only good Nazi is a dead Nazi."*
*Unless they were a rocket scientist.
-- I have a private email server in my basement.