Not commercialism, bandwidth. Home internet connections got much faster. People running the FTP servers found their traffic rising fast, exponentially. They either had to pay for a lot more bandwidth or shut up shop.
You must have been living under a rock for the last decade or two. Google, Facebook, Twitter and every other site that hosts content has always been held accountable for the stuff they host. Legally they have some protection, but public opinion of them doesn't care.
There has been a constant balancing act with freedom of expression on one side and their desire to purge the worst stuff. Oh, and don't forget advertisers, their main source of revenue.
People do hold Google responsible for every nasty video on YouTube. Google is okay with that.
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.
Even that would be unsatisfactory, because some stuff is illegal under US law but not under the laws of other countries and vice versa.
The current situation is probably as good as it gets. For political reasons ICANN defers to registrars, because if it didn't it would be take away from US control anyway. And sites like thepiratebay.org manage to have their TLDs registered in countries with less draconian, corporate authored laws than the US and 99.9% of people are happy with that.
But they may well feel that need when political speech starts getting silenced.
I hope so, but we aren't there yet. Daily Stormer was encouraging people to commit more vehicular murders, which most people don't really see as political speech.
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.
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.
Actually DNS is managed by a variety of organizations based in almost every nation on earth. Daily Stormer will probably end up doing what the torrent sites end up doing, and getting a.org or.to domain with a registrar operating outside the US and Europe.
Such domains are largely immune to even legal attempts to steal them, e.g thepiratebay.org.
Then post that post somewhere normal on the internet, if you can even stand to read it, and get banned instantly.
Why don't you prove yourself right and do just that. Link to the original, post your modified version here. You won't get banned, Slashdot doesn't do that.
Interesting conspiracy theory. Are you claiming that all the protesters were paid to pretend to be Nazis and nationalist and KKK members, or just the Nazis and the others were genuine nationalists and KKK members?
Who right up until November 2016, was an avowed leftist, democrat supporter, proud obama supporter, and so on.
From the SLPC link you posted, but apparently didn't read:
"Kessler himself has placed his "red-pilling" around December of 2013 when a PR executive was publicly excoriated for a tasteless Twitter joke about AIDS in Africa."
By the way, working for CNN doesn't make you a leftist.
Traditionalist Workers Party. Sounds very right-wing to me
I guess the side which brought guns and riot shields kinda look like they were spoiling for a fight... And ramming a car into a bunch of people, murdering one of them probably didn't enhance their image either.
It didn't stop loads of people from buying and selling drugs through the silk road or any of the people who are using it for peddling child porn or other illegal services.
How many more would have used those sites otherwise though? The fact that there are illegal markets on the clear web suggests that there is a group of people who want those services but can't access them via the dark web.
Won't make the slightest difference. For there to be a lawsuit it would have to have harmed someone, and doing so is against the ToS so they would already have been booted off.
Slashdot Mirror
Fairly well rumoured you mean.
I'm questioning the existence of this material, not the reaction to it.
Aren't men supposed to be giving up on marriage?
Seems like what they want isn't just a wife, it's a particular kind of wife that was something of a myth even in the 50s.
He also said that women are less able to deal with stress, without qualification. A claim that isn't even supported by his sources.
The problem is that some white males are just making things worse by fighting the people trying to help them.
It's not a zero sum game, and it's not white males Vs everyone else.
The US has built the world's most powerful surveillance system, the most powerful system of oppression ever seen.
That's the prize for whoever takes power. The far right is dangerously close.
Be careful and good luck.
Not commercialism, bandwidth. Home internet connections got much faster. People running the FTP servers found their traffic rising fast, exponentially. They either had to pay for a lot more bandwidth or shut up shop.
You must have been living under a rock for the last decade or two. Google, Facebook, Twitter and every other site that hosts content has always been held accountable for the stuff they host. Legally they have some protection, but public opinion of them doesn't care.
There has been a constant balancing act with freedom of expression on one side and their desire to purge the worst stuff. Oh, and don't forget advertisers, their main source of revenue.
People do hold Google responsible for every nasty video on YouTube. Google is okay with that.
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.
Even that would be unsatisfactory, because some stuff is illegal under US law but not under the laws of other countries and vice versa.
The current situation is probably as good as it gets. For political reasons ICANN defers to registrars, because if it didn't it would be take away from US control anyway. And sites like thepiratebay.org manage to have their TLDs registered in countries with less draconian, corporate authored laws than the US and 99.9% of people are happy with that.
But they may well feel that need when political speech starts getting silenced.
I hope so, but we aren't there yet. Daily Stormer was encouraging people to commit more vehicular murders, which most people don't really see as political speech.
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.
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.
Actually DNS is managed by a variety of organizations based in almost every nation on earth. Daily Stormer will probably end up doing what the torrent sites end up doing, and getting a .org or .to domain with a registrar operating outside the US and Europe.
Such domains are largely immune to even legal attempts to steal them, e.g thepiratebay.org.
Then post that post somewhere normal on the internet, if you can even stand to read it, and get banned instantly.
Why don't you prove yourself right and do just that. Link to the original, post your modified version here. You won't get banned, Slashdot doesn't do that.
This is a problem for many other sites too, e.g. torrent indexing sites that the MAFIAA hates so much.
It's also worth pointing out that they haven't actually lost the domain, it's just that Google declined to manage the registration and DNS for them.
"We lost fuckloads of money because our business model relied on it becoming insanely popular, and it wasn't"
Except that BLM are nothing like neo Nazis.
My point was not that their right to speak had changed, it was that people stopped simply condemning Nazis and now want them to have a platform.
Interesting conspiracy theory. Are you claiming that all the protesters were paid to pretend to be Nazis and nationalist and KKK members, or just the Nazis and the others were genuine nationalists and KKK members?
Who right up until November 2016, was an avowed leftist, democrat supporter, proud obama supporter, and so on.
From the SLPC link you posted, but apparently didn't read:
"Kessler himself has placed his "red-pilling" around December of 2013 when a PR executive was publicly excoriated for a tasteless Twitter joke about AIDS in Africa."
By the way, working for CNN doesn't make you a leftist.
Traditionalist Workers Party. Sounds very right-wing to me
By the way, have to actually looked at the Traditionalist Workers Party Facebook page? It seems to be full of fake news and some distinctly Nazi/nationalist looking imagery. It actually does sound very right wing to me too, now you mention it.
I guess the side which brought guns and riot shields kinda look like they were spoiling for a fight... And ramming a car into a bunch of people, murdering one of them probably didn't enhance their image either.
It didn't stop loads of people from buying and selling drugs through the silk road or any of the people who are using it for peddling child porn or other illegal services.
How many more would have used those sites otherwise though? The fact that there are illegal markets on the clear web suggests that there is a group of people who want those services but can't access them via the dark web.
It's telling that the alt-right's narrative has shifted from "we are not bad guys" to "well everyone else is just as bad".
If I were around in 1940, I'd have punched Hitler. Maybe that makes me a fascist in your eyes, but I'd tend to view it as an act of self defence.
the Antifa are no less fascist than the DPRK is democratic.
The DPRK is not at all democratic... So Antifa are no less fascist than "not at all"... I think your logic needs work.
They are somehow worse than the people who turned up with guns, riot shields, "blood and soil" chants, swastikas, and then started murdering people?
Won't make the slightest difference. For there to be a lawsuit it would have to have harmed someone, and doing so is against the ToS so they would already have been booted off.