
Google cancels domain registration for Daily Stormer - coloneltcb
http://www.businessinsider.com/google-cancels-domain-registration-for-daily-stormer-2017-8
======
mnm1
Is there anything preventing these fucking nazis from becoming a domain
registrar? Or finding a company with no morals willing to host their domain? I
don't see why they can't do one of the above. There's no duty on the part of
Godaddy, Google, or any other company to provide these fuckers with service.
Let them figure it out themselves if they want to stay online. This isn't a
free speech issue. They have the right to say whatever they want. They do not
have a right to force others to help them say whatever they want.

------
birken
If we are framing this as a free speech issue: Isn't spam email free speech?

How dare any network provider tell me I can't send 500 billion emails about my
Viagra supplements? That is violating my freedom of speech!

The US government has actually passed laws making spam email legal (CAN-SPAM,
under certain conditions), and still most every reputable network provider
will not let you send it on their networks, even if it is legal.

I'm not suggesting the particular issue in the OP is the same as spam, but
clearly there are some boundaries of free speech on networks that everybody
seems to agree are good.

~~~
problems
Curious then - if you're okay with this removal, would you be okay with a
registrar removing a site because it violated some Catholic values? Supported
abortion or something say?

There are reasonable restrictions but generally such restrictions have a lot
more to do with technical or usability issues rather than civil or political
issues. I doubt this will be popular around here, but I'm afraid of being on a
registrar that would reject my domain for saying something controversial.

EDIT: I can't even reply to some of the children here because HN is rate
limiting me because I disagreed with a majority opinion - even only slightly -
and got downvoted. Eugh.

To those saying this is false equivalence or a slippery slope, this is
directed towards people saying "they're a private company, they can remove
whatever they way" \- which it certainly fits the parameters of without
modification. No slippery slope here, a slippery slope means this would have
to lead to another, which I'm certainly not saying here. Merely a hypothetical
that I'm curious how people resolve. I'm not really intending it as a formal
argument one way or the other, just wanted to hear different perspectives on
it.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Curious then - if you're okay with this removal, would you be okay with a
> registrar removing a site because it violated some Catholic values?

I'd fully support it for the ccTLD registrar for the .va domain.

Other registrars...depends on details not specified in the hypothetical.

------
kbody
We need more dumb-pipe-like services. It's one to fight SOPA-PIPA for
something that affects directly your users and your business and it's another
to being "forced" by pressure on social matters that don't directly affect
your users/clients/business.

I would expect or rather hope that companies have their mission and strive on
every chance to make that mission a fundamental reality with no compromises.

As much as I hate what the Daily Stormer does and what it represents, the
reality is that such pressure can come in a different way in the future and be
exploited for non-obvious cases. You open a pandora's box when things like
that happens.

We need more dumb-pipes.

------
noonespecial
Google seems to be in the right here. They aren't a government or even a clear
monopoly as a name service provider.

The 1st prevents me from using government power to prevent people from saying
things I disapprove of, but if they come into my house and say them, I can
certainly demand that they leave.

------
jacquesm
America is going to have a hard time reconciling freedom of speech on the one
hand and curtailing the new Nazi's on the other.

~~~
dragonwriter
Freedom of speech isn't a power to mandate that other private parties must
help to spread your speech.

In fact, it is exactly the freedom for such parties to decline to do so that
is included in freedom of speech.

~~~
falcolas
This is made challenging by the fact that the entirety of the internet is
composed of private parties.

Should we simply stop expecting anything resembling free speech on the
internet?

~~~
eridius
Yes. We've never had free speech on the internet. Or rather, we do, but only
so far as you're free to set up your own server and host your own site and put
whatever you want on it (and if you can't convince a domain registrar to give
you a domain, you can always advertise its IP address, or maybe operate a Tor
hidden service or something like that). But if you're not willing to host your
own site, then free speech on the internet has only been an illusion.

~~~
mike_hearn
Self-hosting doesn't solve free speech on the internet. The first person who
doesn't like you will DDoS you off the net, and then you'll need to run and
hide behind a service like CloudFlare. There are only a few such firms. If
they've been pressured not to protect you because your opinions are deemed
objectionable, then you effectively cannot publish online at all.

This is not a theoretical problem. After Quillette published the response of 4
scientists to the Google memo they were DDoSd off the net.

~~~
problems
There are indeed only a few such firms - but those firms are probably some of
the most bulletproof in the entire industry.

BlackLotus hosted stormfront for years, CloudFlare hosts reams of
controversial content - wikileaks, the pirate bay, 8chan, etc. They're
practically known for it.

Currently at least, it's still quite possible to find a provider who will look
out for their customers. In the registrar category there are a few providers
who shine, DynaDot and EasyDNS have really gone to bat before.

~~~
ardaozkal
Also they're still hosting daily stormer. Well, they got booted from their
registrar so they're offline, but CF denied to stop hosting them.

------
damnfine
Even hate speech is free speech. The public private nature of the internet is
the only issue here. I am really getting scared and disgusted by all the 'nazi
punchers' showing themselves here. To support someones right to free speech is
not the same as supporting the content of said speech.

~~~
ucaetano
> To support someones right to free speech is not the same as supporting the
> content of said speech.

Supporting someone's right to free speech doesn't mean enabling them to.

I support the right of the Nazis to voice their (IMHO completely absurd)
speech, but if I had a business, I'd have guidelines against that type of
speech in my business. In the same way, I wouldn't welcome one into my house.
None of those measures infringes on their freedom of speech.

~~~
21
[https://www.wsj.com/articles/court-rules-baker-cant-
refuse-t...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/court-rules-baker-cant-refuse-to-
make-wedding-cake-for-gay-couple-1439506296)

~~~
Larrikin
There are protected classes in America because of Jim Crow. Its the same as
refusing to bake a cake for someone because they are black.

------
kareldonk
Always good to keep the following quote often attributed to Voltaire in mind :
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to
say it."

~~~
CalChris
Google is _not_ preventing the Daily Stormer from spewing their swill. They
aren't interfering with the Daily Stormer's rights in any way. They're just
refusing to support the Daily Stormer on their commercial platform. In that,
Google is well within their rights. The Daily Stormer is capable of taking
their business elsewhere.

~~~
drspacemonkey
Of course Google has that right. I question whether it will have the intended
effect, though. Pretty sure isolating extremists tends to cause further
extremism.

~~~
dragonwriter
No, isolating the communities from which extremists are drawn causes further
extremism, isolating extremists does not.

There is a challenge in isolating extremists while not isolating (and, indeed,
productively engaging) the communities from which members are radicalized, and
quite often brute-force efforts to isolate extremists (especially ones keying
on race, nationality, and religion) end up isolating the feeder communities
_with_ the extremists, which is about the worst possible outcome.

------
jdavis703
CloudFlare was also providing anti-DDOS capabilities to this site. It's one
thing to defend people's right to free speech from the government, it's
another to provide security services for hate speech.

~~~
eridius
CloudFlare provides basic anti-DDOS capabilities to _anyone_. You may as well
complain that their ISP provided an internet connection.

~~~
themaninthedark
That is the point that these assholes want to reach. Cut off their ability to
communicate with anyone and do business with anyone.

They are fine with it because it is "for a good cause". But if the pendulum
ever starts swinging the other way they will be the loudest to squeal.

------
gist
It still resolves:

nslookup DAILYSTORMER.COM Server: 8.8.8.8 Address: 8.8.8.8#53

Non-authoritative answer: Name: DAILYSTORMER.COM Address: 104.25.126.103 Name:
DAILYSTORMER.COM Address: 104.25.125.103

And it's not on registrar hold. There is a transfer lock which is automatic
because it was just transferred in.

So it's unclear what BI even means by 'cancelled'.

Something doesn't sound right about this story actually.

They certainly don't have grounds to delete the domain based on this:

"The extremeist site published a critical story about Heather Heyer, the
32-year-old woman killed when a car rammed into counter-protesters in
Charlottesville, VA, over the weekend. The story prompted GoDaddy to give
Daily Stormer 24 hours to find a new host for its domain."

Not to mention hard to believe godaddy would have said something like that
either.

~~~
ibn_ibid
>They certainly don't have grounds to delete the domain based on this

It's their service. Hate speech probably violates their ToS.

~~~
gist
Not seeing hate speech listed here:

[https://www.godaddy.com/agreements/showdoc.aspx?pageid=UTOS](https://www.godaddy.com/agreements/showdoc.aspx?pageid=UTOS)

[https://payments.google.com/payments/apis-
secure/get_legal_d...](https://payments.google.com/payments/apis-
secure/get_legal_document?ldo=16267419166080200835&ldt=domainstos&ldr=ZZ&ldl=und)

~~~
maxerickson
Is this an escape hatch?

 _Registrant represents and warrants that:...registering or directly or
indirectly using the Registered Name will not violate any applicable laws or
regulations, legal rights of others, or Google’s rules or policies including:_

It would seem to include rules and policies not listed in the terms.

------
Animats
Domain registrars have no business doing this. Originally, they just
registered domains for ICANN. Now they act like they own them and just rent
them out.

~~~
jacquesm
Domain registrars are not obliged to give service to anybody. If you register
a domain you are given the use of a nice-and-easy-to-remember alias for your
IP address. Whether or not the registrar will want to do business with you is
their problem, that's a transaction between consenting parties, not an
obligation on the part of the supplier. Whether ICANN accepts a registration
or not is another matter, and so far ICANN has not been involved here.

So stormfront is free to shop around until someone wants their business _or_
they can use their IP address, assuming they'll find at least one party
willing to host them.

~~~
ManFromUranus
This same argument could be made for gay couples who want service for their
gay wedding. We already set the precedent that a business cannot refuse
service for customers it finds objectionable. You are essentially arguing in
favor of the christian bakery refusing the gay wedding cake. So I don't think
you can have it both ways, you either force people to do business with those
you find objectionable or you dont.

~~~
dragonwriter
> We already set the precedent that a business cannot refuse service for
> customers it finds objectionable.

Incorrect; we've already established in law a small set of narrow protected
bases of discrimination in public accommodation. Outside of those categories
(or in business relationship that are not within the scope of public
accommodation, regardless of basid) a business _absolutely can_ refuse service
to customers it finds objectionable.

Discrimination based on advocacy of race-based violence does not, it should be
noted, fall into any of those protected categories.

~~~
ManFromUranus
>Discrimination based on advocacy of race-based violence does not, it should
be noted, fall into any of those protected categories.

I agree but this policy is not applied evenly.

> a business absolutely can refuse service to customers it finds
> objectionable.

How was the gay wedding cake thing able to progress then?

~~~
jgh
LGBT people are a protected class, nazis are not.

~~~
Animats
Depends on the state in the US.

------
MichaelBurge
Why do we need registrars at all? They don't seem to do a whole lot, but they
charge quite a bit for it. The "service" they provide is handed down from a
pseudo-government organization.

I suppose someone needs to resolve naming conflicts, and charge rent so unused
domains eventually go away.

I wonder if anyone's made a DNS system where the registry can detect conflicts
but doesn't actually know what domains you own. So you pay $10 for some
encryption key or something, which happens to correspond to a domain, but
nobody including the registrar can tell which domain the key maps to. If you
stop paying, the domain stops resolving; but nobody knows who's paying.

------
syphilis2
What is the option for someone to register a domain name if every domain
registrar refuses to do business with them? I may have the terminology wrong,
since the domain is registered but needs to be transferred to another
registrar.

------
eeks
Regardless of the topic, censorship (private or public) can never be an
acceptable reaction. To quote Louis Brandeis (Supreme Court Justice): "If
there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to
avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more
speech, not enforced silence."

EDIT: I was not expecting to be downvoted when quoting a SCOTUS Justice
arguing for openness of debates, education and spreading of knowledge. I'm
savoring the irony.

~~~
maxerickson
This is a stronger comment if you first make the case that refusal to do
business with someone is censorship.

I mean, I see at least a vague analogy between not doing business with Nazis
and not inviting boring people over for dinner. Is choosing dinner guests
censorship?

~~~
eeks
It becomes censorship when all accesses to a medium (ie. DNS resolvers) are
privatized. In other words, if all private providers refuse them access to a
medium and if we agree this people still have rights, there is nothing in
place to defend these rights. The collective action to refuse them access is
therefore censorship.

~~~
kevingadd
So what you're suggesting is that DNS and domain registration and web hosting
should all be public services operated by the government, because only the
government is obligated to protect internet content from censorship? Or are
you simply arguing that private businesses should be required to accept money
from anyone to host any content, including content that is illegal in other
countries or content that is against their personal beliefs?

~~~
eeks
Those are real questions to which I don't have an answer.

Although I don't believe web hosting is the problem here. Anyone can build a
server and have it accessed using his own IP. So censorship (by design or as a
byproduct) would be hard to achieve (except DDoS obviously).

Registrar are a lot more relevant because they are a service that make
internet addresses intelligible to humans. So preventing one from accessing
this service (either by design or as a byproduct) is an hindrance to their
ability to communicate more broadly the content of their server. Same goes
with search engines BTW.

Also, there is another solutions worth exploring: decentralized DNS
registration.

------
desbest
I will stop using Gmail and move my email elsewhere as google banned the
accounts of Jordan B Peterson and Dennis Cooper, people who do NOT spread
hate. Google is a SJW company.

~~~
Eleopteryx
Why are you mentioning this reasoning in the context of DailyStormer?

------
pottersbasilisk
This is a terrible precedent.

Cant wait until they cancel domain registration of sites that disagree with
Google.

~~~
eridius
Not everything is a slippery slope.

~~~
Clubber
Yes, but some things should be protected vehemently.

~~~
foobarbazetc
Nah.

