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.
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.
Nope. It has been ruled under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act that ISPs and hosting providers can act to remove harmful or objectionable material but are under no strict obligation to do so. This happens all the time when Google takes down sites that host malware, but they are not held liable for not taking down other sites (or not taking them down fast enough) that end up causing widespread damages.
We're entering dangerous ground...
First they came for the Nazis, and I did not speak out because I was not a Nazi ...
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.
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.
You have a right to not be censored by the government. You have no right to not be censored by other citizens.
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.
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."
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.
> Again, it doesn't matter what you think.
Lol
> This has been ruled on by the courts.
This particular thing has not. Nor even really this class of things.
> Google has already used this power, for instance, to take down botnet C&C domains.
I doubt anyone feels the need to move to uncensored DNS to be able to enable botnets. But they may well feel that need when political speech starts getting silenced. As always, the most ludicrous and hateful people are the trial balloons in these cases: no one is going to set up an alternative DNS just for hatemongers. But make no mistake, it will expand far beyond that, and it will be applied unevenly across the political spectrum, so some people will be aggrieved well beyond the haters or whatever.
Also, there's plenty of defamation online. If we started stripping name resolution of every domain that hosts defamation, slashdot would be one of many victims.
Hosting is one thing, this is another. You simply can't push politics that low on the network stack man.
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.
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.
Yes you are right. From the updated statements the reason given by GoDaddy and Google was actually that they were praising the guy that ran her over and encouraging more people to do similar things, i.e. inciting violence.
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.
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
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.
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.
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