
EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain - StuntPope
https://www.easydns.com/blog/2017/09/08/easydns-refuses-to-host-dailystormer/
======
bmelton
Somewhat dichotomously, I agree with every position mark takes in the linked
post, but at the same time, I'm quietly waiting to see where Daily Stormer
ends up landing, so that I can start treating them as the 'real' bastions of
free speech, and very likely start throwing them my business.

It isn't because I'm sympathetic to the nazis in this scenario, but if you're
trying to position yourself as "the free speech registrar", but draw the line
at white supremacy because you're in an interracial marriage, then the signal
I get from that is that you clearly don't cherish _all_ free speech, and gives
me pause that one of my community sites might end up running afoul of whatever
those arbitrary policies are in the future.

~~~
Frondo
Preface: this is an honest question, stemming from my own life and current
group of friends--the circumstances that frame the issue for me--it isn't
intended as snark or a take-down or anything...

Do you have many friends right now who are people of color, or queer/gay, or
even Jewish? How do you explain to them that you'd like to support the
business that goes against the grain and hosts Nazi/white supremacist
material?

I'm asking this because, right now, most of my friends are not white/hetero,
and right now, they're all terrified of the US political climate for different
reasons--the brown folks of being attacked (physically) by white supremacists
and knowing the cops won't defend them (and in a lot of cases, the cops ARE
the white supremacists), and the gays of being attacked by everyone. They're
largely living in fear, and that's shitty.

I don't know if I could look them in the eye and say, "I've switched over to
registrar X, because only they stood up for the Daily Stormer."

Actually, I know I couldn't say that to them, because what kind of asshole
would I look like to my friends if I did that?

Again, this is my experience, but I'm curious how ours differ.

~~~
Majestic121
They would not be standing for the Daily Stormer, they would be standing for
Free Speech.

The concept that allowed the struggles from minorities to be heard in the
first place, and therefore to improve things tremendously for gay and black
people.

We can see that this is not a given, for example Russia is starting to crack
down on 'pro-gay' speech : [http://thegroundtruthproject.org/russias-assault-
on-gay-free...](http://thegroundtruthproject.org/russias-assault-on-gay-free-
speech/)

But defending free speech is sometimes hard, because it also means letting
people you disagree with speak freely even if it obvious to you they're
spewing bullshit. You can't force them to stop, legally or otherwise, but you
can expose their bullshit for what it is.

It is much harder to actually argue with someone (or 100 of people),
especially when they're unreasonable/stupid, than to shut them down. However,
the alternative is to have some kind of moral police to decide what is allowed
or not, and force the literally unquestionable selected truth on everyone,
which is much more dangerous overall in my opinion (see what could be done
with Trump and climate change, or Putin with gay people).

------
Torgo
Their reasoning seems to be this:

We are a free speech registrar. free speech means a private company shouldn't
be forced to host content it disagrees with. We are a company and we disagree
with the content, therefore we will not host it.

OK fine, but this reduces "free speech registrar" to something pretty
meaningless from a consumer point of view.

~~~
gruez
free speech, for us

------
patrickmay
In an earlier post ([https://www.easydns.com/blog/2017/09/06/why-does-easydns-
pro...](https://www.easydns.com/blog/2017/09/06/why-does-easydns-provide-
services-to-martian-separatists/)) supporting free expression, EasyDNS says
that they will only refuse service to sites that advocate or encourage
"physical violence or harm toward an identifiable minority." I have never been
to the DailyStormer site, so I don't know if they meet that criteria. If they
don't, EasyDNS, while well within their rights, is not living up to their own
standards.

~~~
ainiriand
Random page:
[https://web.archive.org/web/20170516210944/https://www.daily...](https://web.archive.org/web/20170516210944/https://www.dailystormer.com/happening-
berkeley-street-war-is-going-down-without-ann-yes/) Asking people to be beaten
up.

~~~
regularhackerer
I don't want to read whatever that is too closely but looks like some random
blog post where some idiot claims 'antifa' or 'right wing protestors' located
at some rally 'deserve to be beaten up'.

You may find there are other blogging platforms out there with actual requests
for violence, often justified with a tagline 'Punch a nazi!'.

~~~
tyleraldrich
The OP asked if the daily stormer hosted content calling for physical violence
and evidence was given. I'm sure plenty of other blogging platforms call for
physical violence, whats the point? Are they EasyDNS customers? If they are,
you should probably let EasyDNS know. If not, your comment is entirely
worthless.

------
Waterluvian
> It even means a restaurant should be able to refuse to seat (pick one):
> black people, white people, males, redheads, left-handed people or
> introverts. Whatever. They probably won’t stay in business very long, it’s a
> form of corporate Darwinism.

I think the point of the argument is that you can't pick and choose when
discrimination is OK. But then the second half, about corporate Darwinism, is
a moral escape hatch, possibly because the author senses how manifestly wrong
that argument feels.

There is no one-size-fits-all solution. Right vs. wrong will be a "you know it
when you see it" case by case basis. And the test for that will mutate as our
society mutates. Things that feel right today will embarrass our children.

What I think is important today is not to rely on capitalist mechanisms to
protect minorities from discrimination. Wheelchair ramps are needed by a tiny
fraction of our society. Many businesses probably wouldn't bother with
accessibility, but it's mandated, because the disabled don't have a large
enough wallet to bankrupt companies that don't put ramps in.

~~~
pasquinelli
"There is no one-size-fits-all solution. Right vs. wrong will be a 'you know
it when you see it' case by case basis."

this is something i observe people, especially intelligent people, rejecting
almost out of reflex, and it bothers me more and more. reasoning from first
principles and justifying each step of reasoning is fine, but it is only an
exercise in making models and thinking through those models. the general terms
you make up along the way are only objects of your thinking. in actual reality
there are only unique, concrete circumstances. human judgement has a place,
but so often people act as if it doesn't, and they act as if holding that view
makes them less biased-- not biased by their own judgement, i suppose. but it
doesn't, they only apply that treatment to everything... but for some things
it never occurs to them. their biases are still there, hidden in their
tepidness, even if they never say this or that is wrong, or _because_ the
never say this or that is wrong.

------
amluto
> It even means a restaurant should be able to refuse to seat (pick one):
> black people, white people, males, redheads, left-handed people or
> introverts. Whatever. They probably won’t stay in business very long, it’s a
> form of corporate Darwinism.

I wonder how the civil rights era would have gone if the courts agreed.

~~~
msla
> It even means a restaurant should be able to refuse to seat (pick one):
> black people, white people, males, redheads, left-handed people or
> introverts. Whatever. They probably won’t stay in business very long, it’s a
> form of corporate Darwinism.

I find it ironic that this is (presumably) precisely the position The Daily
Stormer would take on those issues.

~~~
marchenko
The civil rights era argument outlines a pretty solid meta-principle. Certain
public accomodations should be open to all. I think this list should be
limited, but a public service that effectively acts as a gateway to public
speech could be argued to meet the criteria. I think we're seeing an
illustration of the point(also made during the civil rights era) that the cost
of discriminating against a disliked minority can in fact be very low, so low
that the market tolerates this inefficiency. Or perhaps it isn't irrational at
all, as the market majority may indeed reward the discriminator for providing
this non-monetary good. I hope they find a provider, on principle.

~~~
amluto
The cost of discriminating can be negative, for example, if the wealthier
group that you allow in prefers your establishment if you keep the group they
dislike out.

------
resiros
"It even means a restaurant should be able to refuse to seat (pick one): black
people, white people, males, redheads, left-handed people or introverts.
Whatever. They probably won’t stay in business very long, it’s a form of
corporate Darwinism." Well unless, racism, islamophobie, or antisemitism are
en vogue, then the minority is screwed.

~~~
msla
Right. Societies without a government, or without an effective government,
have no succor for the despised minority: If the majority hates you, nobody
_except_ the government can push back on that hatred.

Racism is like pollution, in that being the first to stop doing it has
disastrous downsides, even if you don't like the end result. It's a Nash
Equilibrium.

------
IronWolve
With companies now coming up with exceptions to their free speech ideology,
whats the technical solution? Seems the only place left for these unwanted
groups, the dark web of tor.

The thing that interests me is technical issues of a site nobody wants to
host. Deny them DNS, Deny them DDOS protection, Deny them hosting, whats left?

~~~
ceejayoz
> Deny them DNS, Deny them DDOS protection, Deny them hosting, whats left?

I mean, not being a neo-Nazi is an option...

~~~
mrguyorama
The fear that most Free Speech absolutists have is that tomorrow it will be:
"I mean, not being a socialist|capitalist|religious individual is an
option..."

From an Ideals perspective, its a valid and valiant fear, but I don't
understand the absolutist position. Legitimate verbal threats are still
allowed under absolute free speech, but they obviously produce harm. Should we
really allow anyone to threaten the life or livelihood of another human being
without repercussion?

Absolutism in the other direction is just as dystopian as well. Follow the
exact line of populist opinion or else.

So "Free speech on principal" people, where does it end? What ISN'T "Free
Speech" to you?

~~~
submersiveblue
Anything that doesn't directly call for violence. If you're presenting a
position that others are free to evaluate on the merits, then free speech
covers it. The point of allowing free speech is to be open to the truth. That
doesn't mean that the truth is never ugly or in disharmony with fashionable
opinion.

------
joshuaheard
This is part of a disturbing new trend of "political discrimination". If
someone opposes the policies of an identity group, in this case mixed-race
marriages, but it could be women, gays, or rural white Christians, then that
opposition is labeled "hate". Once labeled, their speech is deemed offensive
and censored, and they become fair game for political discrimination, to be
fired from their jobs, kicked off social media, and otherwise ostracized.

~~~
sleepychu
Can you explain what you mean by the "policies of an identity group"?

In general the minority identity groups only policy is that they ought to be
treated just like everyone else. I'd say that if you're trying to maintain a
status quo where the majority is treated preferentially that your opposition
is "hate" as is meant by the word today.

~~~
submersiveblue
What does "treated like everyone else" mean and how do you know when it's been
achieved? This kind of standard ranges from the most minimal legal equality of
opportunity to full on equality of outcome.

------
eli
The unfettered free market has historically not been very swift or efficient
in correcting discrimination

~~~
clarkmoody
Please provide us with some examples of the "unfettered free market," thanks

------
drivingmenuts
>It even means a restaurant should be able to refuse to seat (pick one): black
people, white people, males, redheads, left-handed people or introverts.

That is an odd position for a man in a mixed-race marriage with a mixed-race
child to take, because not too long ago it would have meant his child might
not be served or seated. It's only because our government took steps to end
discrimination (after being forced to do so by the people) that it's safe to
hold such unenlightened opinions. I wonder if he'll ever explain to his own
child that it's OK they were discriminated against because "corporate
Darwinism".

One can and should be able to discriminate all day long on the basis of ideas
or actions, which is what has happened with Anglin and his crew of a-holes
(sort of - I suspect it's more ass-covering than principle in a lot of cases).

But, discrimination should not happen based on something an individual cannot
change, which is what the OP seems to be OK with.

~~~
StuntPope
> That is an odd position for a man in a mixed-race marriage with a mixed-race
> child to take, because not too long ago it would have meant his child might
> not be served or seated.

That's not an odd position at all. Would I want to force some white
supremacist line cook and their inbred waiter to serve my wife and child in
their restaurant? No thanks. I'll go somewhere else.

------
charonn0
> I’ve stated numerous times in the past that I uphold the right for any
> business to decide for themselves who they will or will not conduct business
> with. In the long run I firmly believe an unfettered free market would sort
> out who is on the right side or the wrong side of history.

> That means that you can’t force a bible-thumping fundamentalist baker to
> make a cake for a gay wedding if he doesn’t want to.

> It even means a restaurant should be able to refuse to seat (pick one):
> black people, white people, males, redheads, left-handed people or
> introverts. Whatever. They probably won’t stay in business very long, it’s a
> form of corporate Darwinism.

Unfortunately, it doesn't always work that way. Consider just how pervasive
and resilient segregation was; or, how a restaurant might actually _attract_
business from like-minded customers who want to make a point (e.g. Chik-fil-a)

------
simonsarris
Something of a parable (not my words) follows:

In Chesterton’s The Secret of Father Brown, a beloved nobleman who murdered
his good-for-nothing brother in a duel thirty years ago returns to his
hometown wracked by guilt. All the townspeople want to forgive him
immediately, and they mock the titular priest for only being willing to give a
measured forgiveness conditional on penance and self-reflection. They lecture
the priest on the virtues of charity and compassion.

Later, it comes out that the beloved nobleman did not in fact kill his good-
for-nothing brother. The good-for-nothing brother killed the beloved nobleman
(and stole his identity). Now the townspeople want to see him lynched or
burned alive, and it is only the priest who – consistently – offers a measured
forgiveness conditional on penance and self-reflection.

The priest tells them:

> It seems to me that you only pardon the sins that you don’t really think
> sinful. You only forgive criminals when they commit what you don’t regard as
> crimes, but rather as conventions. You forgive a conventional duel just as
> you forgive a conventional divorce. You forgive because there isn’t anything
> to be forgiven.

He further notes that this is why the townspeople can self-righteously
consider themselves more compassionate and forgiving than he is. Actual
forgiveness, the kind the priest needs to cultivate to forgive evildoers, is
really really hard. The fake forgiveness the townspeople use to forgive the
people they like is really easy, so they get to boast not only of their
forgiving nature, but of how much nicer they are than those mean old priests
who find forgiveness difficult and want penance along with it.

From Scott Alexander: [http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-
anything...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-
except-the-outgroup/)

Forgiveness here is somewhat like free speech. If you are for free speech when
you do not find it objectionable, you are not really for free speech at all.

------
StuntPope
Parenthetically... I notice that the comments on this thread which provided
the address the dailystormer domain in a ccTLD and the .onion address, have
been completely removed. Not downvoted, but they look totally gone to me.

------
akerro
Do you consider it net neutrality violation?

------
briholt
Another cowardly "free speech but..." Either you support free speech
(including Nazis or whatever today's boogeyman is) or you don't support free
speech at all. Claiming you support free speech only when you like the speech
is abjectly idiotic. When you start blocking people from using your service
for their speech, it's time to stop calling yourself the "free speech
registrar."

~~~
archagon
Why does it have to be either/or? Society does not operate by strictly logical
principles. I see no problem with "mostly free speech, except for extremists".

~~~
briholt
"Extremists" like that communist agitator Martin Luther King and all those
"extremist" satanic homosexuals spreading AIDS? Good thing we stopped them
from speaking, right? Go to Saudi Arabia, they support free speech, except for
those extremists who claim Mohamed wasn't the true prophet of Allah. Back in
the USSR they supported free speech, except for those extremists who
undermined worker morale.

Pretending you and your allies can quasi-objectively categorize "extremists"
is exactly the sort of mass delusion we need free speech to prevent.

~~~
Rusky
The particular speech in question matters here at _some_ level, doesn't it?
Society is messy and collaborative, and applying a first amendment-style rule
to literally everyone on literally every subject is untenable.

In a sense it's even paradoxical. You can't say that everyone must uphold free
speech on every subject without restricting their own freedom in some way.

~~~
pizza
The paradox being "either 'everyone must let others speak freely' or 'you are
free to decide when others can't speak freely' but not both?"

Why would this paradox arise in a just society? Specifically the second
condition.

My (Kantian) ethical justification for the first is "in any situation where I
use the rule, I would want its use to be universally established", whereas in
the second condition it is clearly false to say that every situation where I
restrict someone else's speech coexists with my desire for everyone else to
decide when another's speech should be restricted, since my desire to censor
and my opponent's opposite desire would contradict that I am acting how I
would if I wanted the rule to be universal.

Isn't the only freedom you're restricting by upholding free speech, the
freedom to arbitrarily restrict freedoms all for the sake of promoting big-
picture freedom? I find it hard to see this as consistent. What kinds of
scenarios do you see as too messy/exceptional/extraordinary where freedom of
speech becomes a self-imposed restriction?

~~~
Rusky
"you are free to decide when others can't speak freely" is a bit reductionist
considering we're talking about a platform providing the capability for
others' speech. Other situations that introduce nuance are private spaces,
individuals' social media feeds, etc.

It's not about "freedom" to restrict others' speech- it's about freedom _not_
to support it or to listen to it.

~~~
pizza
Fair enough, I see how providing the medium for another person's actions is
different than putting yourself in a position of authority over them.

That said, there is an argument to be made that a host should not worry that
they are partly to blame for, or that their non-intervention suggests tacit
approval of, a user's detestable messages - simply because the host just isn't
accountable for the user's actions. The solution to not supporting it, imo, is
to be explicit about the host's scope of permissions and banned content right
up front, before problems occur, because then the responsibility for the user
to not do so is recorded. [If the agreement clause is really vague and allows
nearly anything, it doesn't change that the user can expect it to be used.]

Freedom to not listen to speech is in my opinion just as valid as the freedom
to speak; maybe I'd call it the freedom to silence :P

[An extreme example of Kant is that, if a murderer asks, you _should_ tell
them where the person they say they are going to kill is, instead of lying.
The reason goes: right and wrong having nothing to do with morality (universal
law) so you can't justify lying to the murderer if you see them as a person
who is an end in themselves- rather the lie is a way to pursue a right and
wrong based in single situation hypotheticals (whether you should manipulate
the murderer to save lives), which means it can't derive its value to you from
being universally applicable, from not originating from a categorical truth.
The reason although people are worth more than a means, you still can't
mislead the murderer so as to protect a valuable life, is that the potential
murderer, also an undeniable end in themselves, is the one upon whom the
responsibility for the murder should be placed - you are not responsible
whether or not the murderer tells the truth that they will kill or if they
lie. They are still totally free to choose not to murder the person after you
give their location away anyway. Do I think I would act this way? I really
don't think so. Another way to resolve it is to keep quiet lol]

------
hsod
Do Nazis have a right to running water, electricity, fire department services,
access to medical care, and police protection? Yes.

Do Nazis have a right to have their op-eds published in the New York Times?
No.

Where does DNS lie on this continuum? It feels pretty infrastructure-y to me.
Perhaps there should be a "public option" for DNS.

------
0xbear
There was an article in WSJ yesterday highlighting the hypocrisy of Big Tech
when it comes to Net Neutrality. Everyone keeps railing against telecoms that
they might start censoring things or making them unprofitable, while there
isn't a single example of that anyone can name. Yet there are a lot of recent
examples where tech companies censor or demonetize the material they don't
like. Daily Stormer is an extreme example, of course, but there are far less
extreme ones as well. The other day Dave Rubin got a lot of his videos
demonetized without explanation. There's no "hate speech" in his videos and
never was. And that's just one example out of dozens just recently.

You can't eat your cake and have it too. Tech companies should not be in the
business of censoring views they dislike, even in the extreme cases such as
this one, especially if they insist that telecoms must operate like utilities.

------
wnevets
People like to forget that private companies don't have to care about your
first amendment rights.

~~~
eli
They do have to care about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 though.

~~~
openasocket
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 bans discrimination against protected classes,
including sex, race, and religion, but not political ideology.

------
ainiriand
I really, really like it. Thank you guys. Hate speech, yeah, free speech. But
you are not free of the consequences.

------
Geekette
_" I uphold the right for any business to decide for themselves who they will
or will not conduct business with. In the long run I firmly believe an
unfettered free market would sort out who is on the right side or the wrong
side of history. ... It even means a restaurant should be able to refuse to
seat (pick one): black people, white people, males, redheads, left-handed
people or introverts. Whatever. They probably won’t stay in business very
long, it’s a form of corporate Darwinism. ... But as a man in an interracial
marriage with a mixed-race child, being asked to risk our business and our
customers, to put our asses on the line for a bunch of white supremacists?"_

Bollocks. I agree with the right of his company to refuse to host a
neonazi/hate speech mongering site. However, it wasn't the "unfettered free
market" that resulted in civil rights laws being implemented, it was long
drawn out resistance (with great costs especially to minorities' lives) and
eventual government intervention that changed the status quo in the US and to
suggest otherwise is asinine.

His reasoning also falsely suggests that he'd be fine with repeated
psychological harm at minimum to his family if they were to face multiple
blatantly racist encounters like being insulted/threatened/refused service
anywhere because of who they are, since they'd be comforted with knowing the
free market would eventually sort it out.

