Google Cancels Domain Registration For Neo-Nazi Website Daily Stormer (businessinsider.com) 677
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.
Google is no longer a common carrier. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Google is no longer a common carrier. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Google is no longer a common carrier. (Score:5, Insightful)
> 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.
Re:Google is no longer a common carrier. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Just like the term 'social progress' holds no weight with me. It is thoroughly tainted by tyranny and used as a justification for all sorts of atrocities over the years. It is well loved by both communists and nazis alike.
Better shoes? Who defines what is 'better'? The state? Corporate oligarchy? Mob rule? Some other clique that's overstayed its welcome? I'll just wear the shoes I want, thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think Google was ever a common carrier?
ISPs are common carriers, but Google is not an ISP; they provide services and they have their hooks deeply into the content on those services in a way an ISP does not.
Re: (Score:2)
So where would you draw the line? It seems pretty generally accepted that child-porn is beyond the pale. Indeed there are laws in place against it. When you have a company in a competitive market with a global "image" to maintain, at what point do you say, "Sorry, I can get along without your business" -- especially in the wake of a domestic terror attack on a crowd of protesters?
I don't know if Google was right or wrong in this case, but I would guess they gave it some thought before pulling the trigger on
Re: (Score:2)
No, common carrier means that they're not automatically responsible for things passing through their systems. Imagine if Google had to filter every e-mail, video, and other piece of information for threats/mentions of illegal activity/copyright violations/etc. You couldn't run a system like that without a team of lawyers looking at everything uploaded. Even posting a simple cat video to YouTube would result in a months long delay while it worked through the system.
When Google is notified of something illega
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly you don't understand the difference between violations of Google's Terms and Conditions, which they can enforce as they choose, and being responsible for content. Or maybe you think there isn't a difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Just try to find anything about name registration here. [wikipedia.org] I dare you.
reap what you saw (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Freedom of speech? Devil's advocate (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
How? They were shut down for a violation of the already existing terms of service. It looks like Stormfront agreed (twice) to not promote violence against other people on their web site, then broke the agreement (twice). It's not a slippery slope to enforce the rules that were already written explicitly to handle this situation. It could be a slippery slope, for example if existing rules were being contorted to get the desired result, or if new rules were being written to handle this situation specifica
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Freedom of speech? Devil's advocate (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Freedom of speech? Devil's advocate (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Freedom of speech? Devil's advocate (Score:5, Insightful)
Who is "approving" speech?
Google is simply distancing itself from a group it finds distasteful.
This isn't a free speech issue, no law states that you have to do business with everyone. In fact being able to choose who you do business or associate with within reason is a freedom that is at serious risk being trampled by the mistaken belief that you can say anything with no consequences.
Freedom of speech does not protect you from the consequences of your speech. This isn't people being censored, its people being told their arseholes and they don't want anything to do with them.
Beyond this, falling back on the free speech defence is pretty much handing the argument to your opponent on a silver platter. It says the best reason you have for saying what you are saying is that it is literally not illegal for you to say it.
Think of it this way, you are able to walk into a restaurant and demand to call everyone who works there Mr or Mrs Cunt... This is not illegal but don't at all be surprised when you're asked to leave. Keep it up and you'll find yourself banned from every restaurant in town. Just because its not illegal to say something does not mean everyone else has to silently put up with you. Free speech has never protected you from criticism.
Re: (Score:3)
I believe the rationale is that the article in question went beyond protected speech when it targeted Heather Heyer specifically. Espousing one's beliefs is one thing, no matter how repugnant they might be. However what they wrote is probably considered defamation and therefore illegal.
Basing my opinion on what I've read about what prompted the take down, I have not read the article in question.
IANAL
Re:Freedom of speech? Devil's advocate (Score:5, Interesting)
Is Hate Speech very specifically called out as an exception to freedom of speech?
Here's the thing, Hate speech is not actually codified in law, unlike freedom of expression.
I live in the UK, you'll never be charged with "hate speech", hate speech and hate crimes are a catch all label used by the media, if you're charged with what the Daily Mail would call a "hate crime" you'll be given a specific charge by the court which is usually less offensive to the type of mouth breather that reads the Daily Mail. Usually its a crime like assault, vandalism or harassment that specifically and maliciously targets a protected class (I.E. race, gender, political affiliation, religion, et al.). The "hate" isn't a crime, you can be as hateful and bitter as you like. The crime is the crime, a hateful motivation is a modifier for a harsher penalty.
However this explanation makes too much sense and is not likely to get the knickers of the Daily Mail/Fox News crowd into a knot.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Free speech? This is terrorism.
Guy drove his car into a crowd and killed people.
They're celebrating and asking more people to do the same.
If someone celebrates Boston bombings and says more people should do the same, that is not free speech.
Just imagine what would have happened if the car driver was Muslim and the website was a jihadist website. Would you still say free speech?
Re: (Score:2)
frankly, probably far more from the left than from the right
Probably not.
Re:Freedom of speech? Devil's advocate (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Freedom of speech? Devil's advocate (Score:4, Interesting)
You could provide some examples of how these sites are encouraging violence and murder.
Re:Freedom of speech? Devil's advocate (Score:5, Insightful)
You do realize that is perfectly reasonable for Jews to hate Nazi's because of their actions.
It is perfectly reasonable for black people to hate the KKK because of their actions.
Women have every right to be pissed that they don't make the same money as men for the same jobs, yet you and like minded people simply discount their perfectly legitimate concerns by branding them "feminist haters"
Re: (Score:3)
Out of curiosity, what would you have him do instead, given he clearly perceives there to be an issue.
If you don't want him to speak about it because you find that to be snivelling and twittish, which actions do you recommend?
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder why you think the left uses more hate speech. Do you have some evidence or are you making this judgement with your own bias.
Re: (Score:2)
In what intoxicated world are you living to think there's fucking more hate speech coming from the left than from the right?
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The "freedom of speech" and "common carriage", and on the other side, the "rights of private companies" arguments are all oversimplifications.
There are a lot of overlapping matters of both law and ethics involved here.
For example, there's a difference between providing services without discrimination based on X, and providing services which may imperil your business through either legal liability or placing your services or other customers in a position where either reputational or real damages are more lik
Re:Freedom of speech? Devil's advocate (Score:4, Interesting)
walk down to the town square and let everyone know what I think.
You can't even do that anymore. The "town square" is now a private mall development and political speech is prohibited by their terms of service. And it doesn't even matter that public tax dollars helped fund the mall development.
I get the standard pedantic line that "freedom of speech" is freedom from government prohibition on speech, but I think the increasing privatization of speech "platforms", whether they be Internet oligopolies or the domination of public space by private corporations, is a real threat to the principal of free speech.
When the public arena for speech is functionally controlled by private entities, does the protection from government censorship really mean much? Can we say we even have "free speech"?
Alternatives domain registrars... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
An argument for USPS to get into the digital age? (Score:3)
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.
Re:An argument for USPS to get into the digital ag (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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,
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Dupe (Score:2)
Do we need this twice?
Hello, Babs. (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [blogspot.com])
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.
Re: (Score:3)
"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)
Sure, but there's more than one reason to fear what a man might say. You might fear the truth, if you have done wrong; but you might also fear a lie, if it's a good enough one that it makes stupid people do bad things.
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.
Well, on one hand, they say there's no such thing as bad publicity. And on the other hand, that's a lot of nonsense. Most of the people who would agree with these dillholes already know who they are and what their URL is, because it's part of their little echo chamber reality already.
Oh the irony (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Oh the irony (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Hate the KKK and racist supremacists... (Score:5, Insightful)
...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.
Re:Fry speech (Score:5, Informative)
I missed where the government was doing anything to restrict these Nazis speech.
Re: Fry speech (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: Fry speech (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Google or any sufficiently big corporation controlling data flow can be even more dangerous than the government.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Well, we once had a policy of, "The only good Nazi is a dead Nazi."*
*Unless they were a rocket scientist.
Re:Fry speech (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Fry speech (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have a problem with that then don't use Google.
Re: (Score:2)
Just don't visit sites of organizations you don't want to hear from. It's not that hard. There's no need to deplatform anyone with lame DoS.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Fry speech (Score:5, Funny)
We're entering dangerous ground...
First they came for the Nazis, and I did not speak out because I was not a Nazi ...
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Fry speech (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you trying to equate white supremacists with unionists and Jews? They're not the same. The KKK were Americas first domestic terrorist organization [wikipedia.org].
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."
Re:Fry speech (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you trying to equate white supremacists with unionists and Jews? They're not the same. The KKK were Americas first domestic terrorist organization [wikipedia.org].
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.
Re: (Score:3)
...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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing dangerous about recognizing the Daily Stormer as a website that promotes violence and extremism
Good for Google
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I think ridicule works better. War plays into their histrionic delusions. They love being in metaphorical wars.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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 n
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:In the words of Orange45 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In the words of Orange45 (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 resea
Re:In the words of Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One of these things is not like the others.
Re:In the words of Trump (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: In the words of Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
Which opens a fun can of worms. Google now indirectly supports every offensive site they're currently hosting.
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re:In the words of Trump (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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... [extranewsfeed.com]
Re:In the words of Trump (Score:4, Insightful)
"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.
Re: (Score:3)
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,
Re:In the words of Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:In the words of Trump (Score:4, Interesting)
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/... [wikipedia.org]
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... [extranewsfeed.com]
(Paradox of Tolerance)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
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.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe someone will be listening to me after all.
No, I don't think so.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re:No succour for supporters of terrorism (Score:5, Informative)
You have a right to not be censored by the government. You have no right to not be censored by other citizens.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Just as you have no right to not be offended by neo-nazis.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe we're already closer [to 1984] than we thought
Actually, Idiocracy [youtube.com] is an infinitely better analogy.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)