
Google cancels domain registration for Daily Stormer - mido22
http://nordic.businessinsider.com/google-cancels-domain-registration-for-daily-stormer-2017-8?r=US&IR=T
======
averagewall
This seems like a clear case of GoDaddy and Google stopping political speech
they disagree with, not because of illegal activity.

"The story, which attacked Heyer for her physical appearance and referred to
her using various offensive epithets, prompted GoDaddy to give Daily Stormer
24 hours to find a new host for its domain."

They'll remove your domain for insulting someone? The internet is full of
personal abuse. That can't possibly be the reason.

~~~
strathmeyer
Go to the website yourself if you'd like to see what kind of stuff they are up
to.

~~~
averagewall
It seems to be down at the moment. But any amount of insults are still just
insults. Illegal activity is different, but they're not claiming that's the
reason, and it it was, the police should handle it.

I can understand a more "private" service like Twitter blocking cyber
bullying, but domain names are part of the infrastructure. People depend on
them much more.

~~~
tim333
Google and GoDaddy are private businesses. They are allowed to not do business
with sites they find repugnant if they like.

The current headline on the Stormer is "Badass Cop Expresses Full Support for
Running Over Fatties Charlottesville-Style" by the way. If I was running the
domain registrar I'd have little enthusiasm for Nazi enthusiasts encouraging
murder either.

------
mejin
So you may like Google's and GoDaddy's reaction in this case. be But try to
think what could happen if this was the norm. Comcast could refuse to provide
their services to sites that talk about Google fiber. Google could remove Bing
from 8.8.8.8. T-Mobile could block calls to Sprint.

Some of what I listed are currently illegal, but are they in essence
different? With rumors that the current administration might remove net
neutrality, things like this will only encourage them to.

~~~
zimpenfish
You're equating racists crowing over the death of someone at the hands of a
racist (that was in all likelihood a reader of their site) with "sites that
talk about Google fiber".

I mean, I've seen some daft "whataboutisms" this past week but this is
amazing.

~~~
mejin
Lets say that in this case you are right. Who decides where to draw the line
between talking about Google fiber and "crowing over the death of someone"? If
we were in Italy in 1610 writing that the Sun was the center of the solar
system would be hate speech. If we were in Germany in the 1930s the government
would tell us that writing that Germans are not the master race is hate
speech. If we were in the US in the 1950s saying that Communism is good would
be hate speech. If we were in current China saying that the Tibet is not part
of China could be considered hate speech. Maybe in a little while the current
US administration will say that writing that climate change is caused by
humans is hate speech.

But more importantly, Google made the decision not due to laws that were
created by the elected officials but rather based on how they felt. Imagine if
a Catholic hospital refused service to anyone who suggested that people should
read books from the banned book list. After all, the reason that they are on
the banned book list is because someone decided that those books were hateful.

I don't understand how this is whataboutism.

------
pasbesoin
I have several domains with light use or "parked" with Namecheap. A month or
two ago, there was a story about their giving someone the boot because they
"violated Namecheap's TOS". I seem to recall that said "breach" was weaker and
more questionable as well as being based in apparent mis-understanding on
Namecheap's part.

At the time, this caused me concern WRT whether more or _all_ domain name
registrations might end up subject to the will and whim of individual
registrars.

Might I lose a domain due to some arbitrary decision by Namecheap? How long
would I have to "rescue" it? What if I was traveling? I do travel to some
remote places, occasionally.

Now, it starts to seem indeed more like one's presence in the DNS is or will
be subject to the tastes and discretion of the private companies that are the
registrars taking, holding, and managing these registrations.

As a famous movies says, "I hate Illinois Nazis."

But DNS should be managed technically, not emotionally.

Not looking forward to the "Great Corporate Firewall" any more than I've not
enjoyed the Great Chinese Firewall, et al.

P.S. I guess I should read the article. It will probably be some disgusting
behavior that more than half makes me want to change what I've just written.

But, I keep seeing the "open" net being chipped away at. And I'm not sure how
or who we trust to draw the line between what's acceptably open and what's
not.

P.P.S. Oops, I did already read it. But I didn't see the denigrating article
nor much detail about that article, in it. However, I'm guessing it may be the
one that a friend shared -- copy/pasta, without linking, by the way; no
brownie points for the authors -- because it was so disgusting and offensive,
she thought all her friends should be aware of the filth emanating from these
people.

It was really damned offensive, and cruel.

Makes me a bit worried about what I wrote, above. Nonetheless, I'm also very
worried about DNS becoming a political and emotional football.

~~~
g-clef
Everything you do is political in some way. Saying that you're worried about
DNS becoming a political football implies it isn't already. It is. From
ICANN's self-serving lunacy (don't lift that rock unless you have time to go
down some very deep and fairly scuzzy rabbit holes), to domain seizures by
governments (and private companies like Microsoft), DNS is already political.
So is every other part of the internet infrastructure. Examples: the great
firewall of china, registering to get porn in the UK [1], payment processors
refusing to handle donations to Wikileaks [2].

The question isn't "should DNS and/or Internet infrastructure be
political?"...because it already is. The question is "whose politics should it
follow?"

[1]: [http://www.businessinsider.com/uk-government-force-porn-
site...](http://www.businessinsider.com/uk-government-force-porn-sites-age-
filters-credit-card-checks-2017-7)

[2]: [https://www.wired.com/2010/12/paypal-
wikileaks/](https://www.wired.com/2010/12/paypal-wikileaks/)

------
balladeer
It's more concerning that we oppose censorship until the censorship starts
aligning with our moral compass.

~~~
tim333
Dunno - I'm fine with opposing censorship apart from stuff like child porn.
What's so bad about moral compasses?

~~~
kayfox
Everyone has a different one.

------
xhasid
The site has been organzing and inciting a political movement whose endgame is
genocide. They are not coy about this. Inciting violence is not legal.

