
GoDaddy has shut down Richard Spencer’s white supremacist site - MBCook
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/05/godaddy-has-shut-down-richard-spencers-white-supremacist-site/
======
modbait
If free speech is only for people we like, it's not worth much.

~~~
jacksmith21006
Private companies are not subject to freedom of speech. Something they do not
like can go as long as not a protected class.

~~~
slededit
Your conflating the principle of "freedom of speech" with the implementation
in law. The social expectation of neutral service providers has been seriously
eroded over the last 2 decades. We never had laws in this space because we
never needed them (we do for telephones).

~~~
mieseratte
I'm of similar mind on this. Free speech is a concept that transcends law, and
while _you_ absolutely don't have to agree with it I expect service providers
to. The second they willingly remove content that is not illegal, I cannot
trust they will treat my content fairly should it come under scrutiny. Should
I find myself under the scorn of an internet lynchmob, I could very well find
my content removed.

~~~
scarface74
So if someone said that they wanted to kill the President (not being political
this is true no matter who is President) how fast do you think you would see
government agents knocking on their door?

Why should a private citizen get any less protection?

~~~
mieseratte
> how fast do you think you would see government agents knocking on their
> door?

Couldn't tell you, I don't exactly research SS response times.

> Why should a private citizen get any less protection?

Because our elected representatives determined the President needs additional
protection.

------
anfilt
Okay, sounds like the site definitely is pushing things too far.

However, it kinda makes me nervous that this happening at the DNS level. I
understand go daddy is a private entity, but I think the DNS records should be
held to a higher standard.

------
ddtaylor
While I agree with the sentiment here of free speech, GoDaddy shouldn't be
forced to participate in something they don't want to. He's free to try
another provider or setup his own BGP rules etc.

~~~
darkengine
The dillema I see with this argument in regards to the Internet is that it's
exceedingly cost-prohibitive to publish content on the internet without the
discretion of an entity like GoDaddy. What's more, even if you have the
monetary means to buy an ASN and IPv4 space (which has a market value of about
$4,000 for the smallest block you can announce), nobody is legally obligated
to provide transit to you (which itself typically costs somewhere in the
ballpark of $300/month).

I don't believe resilience to censorship on the internet should be a right
reserved for the wealthy (or even reserved for networking experts who could
build their own AS), but I have yet to reconcile that with the right that
private service providers have to turn down customers (and it goes without
saying that this particular website will not be missed). I wonder if a non-
profit hosting provider that was bound by its constitution to host any legal
content for anyone that could pay could be successful.

~~~
ddtaylor
> without the discretion of an entity like GoDaddy

There are lots of other domain registers, some in specific that specialize in
free speech rights.

> What's more, even if you have the monetary means to buy an ASN and IPv4
> space (which has a market value of about $4,000 for the smallest block you
> can announce)

Realistically someone could publish to IPFS and do CNAME redirects without a
server.

> I wonder if a non-profit hosting provider that was bound by its constitution
> to host any legal content for anyone that could pay could be successful.

Reminds me of riseup, but that has a littered history as well.

Also there is Namecoin and .bit addresses. Not saying they work flawlessly,
but the concept does solve this problem.

~~~
anfilt
Still we are talking about the underlining infrastructure here. While not
versed in all the details of ICANN's policies I am actual surprised there no
policy stopping a registrar from doing this.

I can understand hosting, but I think DNS records should held to higher
standards. People don't like governments messing with the DNS system why
should we give a private company a pass?

