
Google says it will ban neo-Nazi site after domain name switch - doener
https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/14/16145064/google-daily-stormer-ban-neo-nazi-registrar-godaddy
======
sctb
Previous discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15010981](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15010981)

------
nemo44x
The Website is only doing this for publicity. They knew Google would ban them
immediately and they can use that as a cry of oppression to their members and
aspiring members and young people who buy into this and are looking for a
cause to identify with. And after all this a lot more people know about them
than before. Streisand effect in action.

~~~
Clubber
Perhaps, but Google's short sightedness will probably make them
(Stormwhatever) stronger. I mean who knew Google liked to sensor unfavorable
views? A lot of people do now.

~~~
nemo44x
My fear is it will be easier for organizations like this Website to radicalize
otherwise moderate people. It isn't hard to sell the argument that "first they
(liberal minded people) wanted to take away your second amendment right. Now
they want to take your first! We are the protectors of the Constitution!".

Banning them is futile (someone on Earth will host them) and makes them more
subversive, taboo, and attractive to certain people.

~~~
Clubber
>"first they (liberal minded people) wanted to take away your second amendment
right. Now they want to take your first! We are the protectors of the
Constitution!".

I'm sure that is absolutely what is happening, and they kind of have a point.
Google leans liberal, they just got a ton of bad press for firing that guy,
and they just blocked Stormwhatever from their DNS servers after GoDaddy just
did (who I assume is also liberalish).

Like I said, shortsighted. Not to mention when people start thinking of Google
as a monopoly, they don't want a bunch of references to a banstick coming up
in public discourse.

~~~
croon
Respect, humanity and kindness isn't political, liberal or otherwise.

If anyone buys into that bullshit it's on them, not Google or Godaddy.

~~~
Clubber
So the irony of it is that Google blocked their registration to minimize their
footprint, yet in doing it, the propaganda they gave the Stormwhatevers will
stand to actually increase the footprint.

It's like when we invaded Iraq to fight terrorism (or whatever) and ended up
creating one of the strongest terror groups (ISIS) history has seen in a
while.

Ya gotta have to face palm. I mean this is nothing new. When you kill the
crazy leader, you make him a martyr thus strengthening the group. Worked since
at least Christianity.

Maybe Google should stay out of politics.

------
myrandomcomment
Part of the reason we served was to allow people we disagree with have the
right to freedom of speech no matter how stupid their views are. Banning hate
speech (no matter how abhorrent) is a slippery slope.

~~~
CydeWeys
Private companies are allowed to choose who they want to do business with. To
give you an example, pornography is legal, and the government can't jail you
for making or distributing it, but it's also within Facebook's rights to
decide that they don't want it on their platform.

Freedom of speech has to do with freedom from government censorship and
prosecution; you can't force random private entities to help spread your
speech.

~~~
steveeq1
Yet the government can force private entities to sell a cake to a homosexual
couple? The laws seem arbitrary to me.

~~~
CydeWeys
Nazis aren't a protected class in the US.

~~~
steveeq1
So if homosexuals weren't a protected group, you would support that?

~~~
CydeWeys
This is a discussion of what is legal and what isn't, no? I don't make the
laws so I don't see how my views are relevant here. It's _legal_ to refuse to
do business with Nazis. That's what's at issue here.

------
Overtonwindow
I really don't like this. I don't support nazi's and racists but I do support
the free expression of speech. The mob mentality is pushing Google and GoDaddy
towards censorship. Where will it end? Why don't they revoke the domain of
4Chan? What's next, Wikileaks? Unless the website is breaking the law I say
leave them alone.

------
Overtonwindow
Where's the EFF now? Unless it is breaking the law, censorship of any kind is
wrong in my book. As distasteful and atrocious as they are, I don't care if
you're nazi's or nambla, free expression on the internet, of all places,
should be guaranteed. I hope they find a domain that stands up to the mob.

------
ape4
Freedom of Speech says this jerks should be able to have a domain. Business
sense says its dumb to host this group.

~~~
lightbyte
>Freedom of Speech says this jerks should be able to have a domain.

No it does not, the government is not the entity they are dealing with.

~~~
cgag
because we have to do this every time:

Either the principle is important and you support it or you don't. If you
actually believe in freedom of speech you don't get to celebrate censorship by
corporate entities because the constitution didn't forbid it.

~~~
lightbyte
These are completely different concepts. Government != buisness. I can't
choose to ignore the US government if I live here and don't like what they do.
These people do not have to use Google if they do not agree with their
decision.

~~~
TheAdamAndChe
The issue here is that Google holds a monopoly on search, which has an
incredible effect on the internet. Given that the gateway to the internet for
most people is Google, should freedom of speech protections extend to it?

~~~
gotrecruit
effect

~~~
TheAdamAndChe
Corrected, thank you

------
to_bpr
Outrage-driven censorship isn't anything new, unfortunately.

While I respect Google's rights to host whatever it wants as a private
business, I can't help but feel these actions merely serve to prove certain
groups right and embolden, or entrench, divisions even further.

~~~
willstrafach
Most folks would still vehemently object if this was done on the basis of
political party or similar, and would not seriously consider "but you wre fine
when they had issues with white supremisists and Nazis!" to be a credible
argument. The slippery slope concern does not seem like it would apply much
here.

------
stupidstupid1
Silencing opinions is great as long as its opinions I disagree with.

------
squarefoot
That's a reason for yelling censorship served on a golden tray. Well done,
Google. Bravo!

------
pravda
Censorship! It's the American way!

~~~
dragonwriter
That's literally true; _private_ censorship is exactly what the freedom of
speech and press in the first amendment protect: that every private party is
generally free to choose what speech it will relay.

~~~
thrill
So ... no "bake that cake" for you?

~~~
flunhat
We've been through this debate before - businesses can't discriminate against
anyone who is in a protected class. Otherwise, they can pick and choose.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class)

~~~
thrill
So these guys are claiming their (hateful) message is about their race. Are
they justified in claiming their protected class is not being recognized in
this business decision by Godaddy, et alia.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Are they justified in claiming their protected class is not being recognized
> in this business decision by Godaddy, et alia.

They are certainly free to lay out their evidence that it is race and not
advocacy of violence that motivated the actions, either to make that case in
the court of public opinion or one of law (race-based discrimination in public
accommodation is generally illegal).

From the publicly available evidence, that explanation doesn't seem the most
likely one, though.

------
Cozumel
Google - blocking Nazi sites today, blocking your political party of choice
tomorrow.

This is why namecoin and .bit domains are so great, it's basically registering
your domain on the blockchain so it can't be censored.

~~~
Daishiman
This a garbage, slipper-slope argument. It is clear and indubitable that the
people in question host hate speech. There's nothing controversial about it.

~~~
myrandomcomment
Yes they host hate speech. What is your point. They have the right to speak
even if their views are poison and stupid. That is the point. This speech
would have been perfectly fine in the 50s & 60s. The sites that would get
banned by your logic would be the anti-rascism ones as that did not follow the
popular sentiment. All speech should be protected even if it is abhorrent and
stupid.

~~~
Daishiman
No, not really. Who the hell thinks that "all speech should be protected"?
You're oversimplifying a complex issue into a soundbyte that is not and has
never been real. Nobody defends hate speech.

~~~
myrandomcomment
No I am not. It is really that simple. People can say and think whatever
stupid thing they want. As soon as you put limits on what people can say it
becomes a slippery slope (Hey let's ban talking about Abortion - you do not
think that would happen given enough control to that camp?). The only way to
be safe it just to allow people to say what they want (with in the limits of
"fire in a theater" or liable) and deal with it. You do not have to like it.
Feel free to argue and protest against it. That is your right because what
comes out of your mouth is just a protected as something that comes out of the
dumbass alt-right people. I am not afraid of what they say. I challenge the
facts and truth of it but it is their right to be stupid. Only education and
good people standing up for what is just and correct removes the sources of
hate speech. Banning it is just something that allows people to feel good
without solving the source of the issue in the first place.

~~~
Daishiman
Really? Because Germans have banned Nazi speech and they're doing pretty damn
well.

It's easy for you to say that you're not afraid. I bet you're not a persecuted
minority. The torches aren't going to be coming down on you buddy.

And like I said, we ban speech all the time. We have NDAs, we have court
orders, we ban fighting words and so on. The idea that the slippery slope is
just not happening seems alien to you.

~~~
myrandomcomment
My lastname is Persian so...airports are fun. My mother marched in the south
in the 60s for civil rights.

It there is still a huge number of Neo-Nazi's in Germany so banning speech has
worked?

Banning speech because you think the torches are coming for you is just a feel
good measure. Only education and good people standing up to do the right thing
can fix this. Let's get this right - I cannot stand these alt-right morons.
They make my stomach turn. In reality however I just feel sorry for them and
wish we as society could fix / education / heal whatever stupidity in their
upbringing makes them act / think this way. No child is born racist. It is
taught. A witch hunt to ban them just makes their persucution and anger
complex worse.

'Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness
to a night already devoid of stars.... Hate cannot drive out hate: only love
can do that.' –Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community, MLK.

Court orders are temporary based on a on going case, etc. NDAs are a voluntary
contract. They also legally do not prevent you from speaking in the case of a
legal violation.

I am an absolutist on this issue because it is the only safe way.

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was
not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out — Because I
was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me." \- Martin
Niemoller

He spent 7 years in a Nazi concentration camp.

------
lucisferre
On a related note, Anonymous has apparently hacked them.
[https://www.dailystormer.com/hacked-anonymous-now-in-
control...](https://www.dailystormer.com/hacked-anonymous-now-in-control-of-
daily-stormer/)

