
GoDaddy tells the Daily Stormer to move their domain for TOS violation - sandmansandine
https://twitter.com/GoDaddy/status/896935462622957573
======
jlgaddis
I've never heard of Daily Stormer before now. I have no idea who they are,
what their beliefs are (although I can fathom a guess), or anything else about
them. As someone who supports "online rights", however, I certainly believe
that this web site should have equal access to publish content online. To
believe otherwise -- regardless of the content -- is censorship and I am 100%
against that. It is a very slippery slope.

For anyone looking for a host, you might consider NearlyFreeSpeech.NET [0].
Their Terms and Conditions of Service ("TACOS") [1] are pretty basic and
straightforward.

[0]: [https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net](https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net)

[1]:
[https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/about/terms](https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/about/terms)

~~~
PinguTS
Free speech != hate speech

~~~
srslack
There's no "hate speech" exception to the First Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution. GoDaddy here, however, is probably free to deny service but not
free to take their US TLD away from them.

There is probably an interesting discussion about US TLD's here, though, and
property rights inherent to them. On any other TLD, the domain would have
probably been seized long ago. But, given the climate, it's clear that this
discussion is not going to happen.

~~~
rys
.com is a gTLD and does not belong to the US.

~~~
srslack
>does not belong to the US

It's a US-based TLD, the authority being Verisign. The point is that GoDaddy
can tell them to take it elsewhere, but as far as the registry is concerned
it's not going to be seized and it's not going to be revoked. Not unless you
have a court order. And, lacking any real criminality, there's really shaky
first amendment/jurisdiction issues. Not even getting into
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act)

------
jlgaddis
It seems quite weird to see praise being heaped upon GoDaddy. People sure do
have short memories nowadays.

I see lots of anger/disgust towards Cloudflare on the twitters too. In the
past, they've refused to do any censoring. Will this change their minds?

~~~
praneshp
> It seems quite weird to see praise being heaped upon GoDaddy. People sure do
> have short memories nowadays.

What, they did other things in the past, so this thing they did is also wrong?
Weird logic.

(Former GoDaddy employee)

~~~
jlgaddis
> _What, they did other things in the past, so this thing they did is also
> wrong? Weird logic._

Of course not, but in the not-so-distant past, there were widespread calls to
boycott GoDaddy (as I'm sure you're aware).

(Former GoDaddy customer)

~~~
FullMtlAlcoholc
That was due to thr then CEO pisting a photo of himself and an
elephant(endangered species) he had killed. That CEO has since been sacked

------
fra
This has nothing to do with free speech, or net neutrality.

This is a private business who reserves the right not to serve anyone.

A hypothetical christian registrar might refuse to do business with an
abortion clinic. Many refuse to do business with ISIS.

You're allowed to say whatever you want, but you don't have a right to do it
on my privately-held platform.

~~~
snakeanus
Sure, this might be a private business and they might be free not to deliver
certain content but this does not exempt them from criticism. Just like they
are free not to map the address to the ip of that site so are people free to
criticise them for this kind of censorship.

~~~
fra
I'm sorry, did I stifle your right to criticize them? Criticize away! And it's
my right to criticize your criticism ;).

------
FrozenVoid
I guess Net Neutrality dying in few weeks will send controversial content into
darknets. If you wonder why ISP/Registrars/Clouds/Hosters weren't capable of
"moderating/filter" content before, its because Net Neutrality regulations
restricting them to something like a road owner. A road owner can't inspect
trucks and demand certain cars off the road, only collect tolls. Without Net
Neutrality this concept goes out the window.

~~~
sever5
Apparently you haven't read a ToS/AUP before, choosing GoDaddy for anything
the least bit controversial was a mistake.

------
UfMH4
They were kicked off for calling a murder victim "a 32-year old, fat,
childless slut" after she was run down by a car at one of their rallies this
weekend.

------
godzillabrennus
Hope they have to pay through the nose to spread that kind of garbage ideology
online.

------
hoodoof
A slippery slope.

------
Overtonwindow
With the experiment of GAB I wonder if moves like this will just push the
extremists onto their own internet.

~~~
rukittenme
What is GAB?

~~~
jshevek
From
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_(social_network)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_\(social_network\))

Gab is an Austin, Texas-based[1] social networking service that allows its
users, called "Gabbers," to read and write short messages of up to 300
characters called "gabs". The site also offers limited multimedia
functionality. Gab describes its mission as "to put people and free speech
first" by limiting censorship to filtering options made available to
Gabbers.[5]

~~~
fenomas
What an odd service offering - it sounds very much like "Twitter except we
don't ban anyone". If that's the main differentiator, wouldn't one expect all
their early adopters to be people who are either banned from twitter or want
to follow people banned from twitter?

~~~
jshevek
I don't like the idea that so much of our communication is under the
centralized control of social network sites like Twitter and Facebook. I would
prefer if the gab enthusiasts had adopted gnu social, but as things are I am
glad that SN sites are being made which are committed to the moral principle
of free speech.

It's possible that gab's early adopters include people who value free speech
as a principle.

------
tdurden
It seems that Anonymous has taken over the site.

------
snakeanus
They wouldn't have to deal with that if they used tor/i2p instead.

------
valuearb
Why wait 24 hours?

~~~
srslack
It allows them to look good and not be roped into an ICANN/property dispute
shitstorm inherent to .com and related US TLD's, I imagine. They're just going
to transfer the domain. Weev probably has something to say about it.

