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.
There's plenty of hate speech on both sides, and, frankly, probably far more from the left than from the right.
Do you have any evidence of this or is it just something that sounds truthy to you?
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.
Am I the only who is increasingly worrying about this argument towards freedom of speech?
I mean, if every single public forum is owned by a company, this would mean that any company could dictate what can be talked about on their forums. All you need is people from the government being "good friends" with the media (or the other way around, media lobbying politicians and becoming "close friends") to began widespread internet censorship.
I know is an extreme, but given the current circumstances, it seems "being able to" create a mass censorship apparatus is each day closer, all of this with the approval of most people. And hey, it scares me.
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.
Which opens a fun can of worms. Google now indirectly supports every offensive site they're currently hosting.
This is sort of what I was thinking of. If you're trapped in your house, and have a phone that can only receive calls, and suddenly your phone is removed from every phonebook, every phone index, even if everyone disagreed with you, how would they be able to find you to hear your opinion?
Sure freedom of speech is specifically limited to government, but DNS is managed by private companies, and effectively all access to the internet and DNS is provided through private companies, not the government. If you can't register your domain on the internet, you don't have a voice here anymore.
moox. for a new generation.
I hate to quote Game of Thrones, but...
"When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say." (Meme related)
This seems to be related to the Streisand Effect. And /pol/ has memes about how nearly everyone there now first went there to see for themselves what was so terrible that everyone condemned it.
My guess is that Google and GoDaddy have just delivered publicity and an endorsement the likes of which those guys couldn't in a hundred years have been able to purchase.
See that "Preview" button?
Classic (or perhaps deliberate) misunderstanding of our right to free speech. Yes, we must stand up for the rights of others we vehemently disagree with to say what they're gonna say. But no, nobody owes them a platform or a pedestal. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.
Hey, Windows users, there is no such thing as "forward" slash, there is only slash and backslash.
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.
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.
...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
Freedom of speech isn't absolute. Not in any country on Earth. Even the US has laws against some speech, like harassment, fraud and incitement.
Those are the bare minimum for a functioning society. Google goes a little further, but not much, by declining services to Nazis. Would you let BLM use your lawn to protest from if they asked? If you wouldn't, you are a hypocrite.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC