Earlier quoted context omitted.
>And Google and Go-Daddy have a right to deny service to anyone they like People keep saying this but I don't think it is true at all. Not trying to be inflammatory, but that wasn't too popular of an opinion when it was the bakery refusing to make a cake for a gay couple
Sexual orientation is (or at least should be) protected so it cannot be used as the basis for discrimination, neither can race or religion. Being an inflammatory racist is not (and should not be) protected.
DOJ Demands Files on Anti-Trump Activists, and DreamHost Resists
51–60 of 153 posts
Re: DOJ Demands Files on Anti-Trump Activists, and DreamHost Resists
#52This is the proper thing to do for DreamHost. On an un-related matter, domain registrars (Google, Go-Daddy) shouldn't be the ones censoring free speech of the alt-right by revoking Daily Stormer's registration. However vile and despicable the views expressed on the site, they have a constitutional right to it. If they indulge in illegal activities, alerting law enforcement is the recommended course of action, just li…
If we start biasing registrars and holding them accountable for the content hosted by all registrants, we get some content put into an "IP only" ghetto, and that fundamentally destroys one of the internet's most important components (even worse than it's already been destroyed by walled gardens like Facebook et al): the convenient ability of anyone to publish anything instantly and accessibly.
Do we really want to have to use IP addresses to access anything that is contrary to corporate-approved narratives? Use a rogue "politically incorrect" DNS server?
ICANN should really step in here and strongly insist that registrars never do this kind of content policing again.
EDIT: This post was not flagged when I started replying, was flagged after. Vouched for content/to counteract what I assumed were reactionary flags, unvouched based on others' assertions that this is derailing the parent thread which is not technically about this issue, which I guess is probably correct. Mods, please consider whether this is really too far off-topic to be allowed.
Re: DOJ Demands Files on Anti-Trump Activists, and DreamHost Resists
#53They're seeking the identities of the rioters on January 20th. Over 200 people were arrested but many more have yet to face the consequences for what they did.
So there's a million or so people that visited that website and they want to unmask all those people to attempt to find 200 alleged rioters? That sure sounds like an overreaching fishing expedition.
Re: DOJ Demands Files on Anti-Trump Activists, and DreamHost Resists
#54Basically the DOJ is just grabbing everything so they can filter through the comments and logs at their convenience.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
Re: DOJ Demands Files on Anti-Trump Activists, and DreamHost Resists
#55This is the proper thing to do for DreamHost. On an un-related matter, domain registrars (Google, Go-Daddy) shouldn't be the ones censoring free speech of the alt-right by revoking Daily Stormer's registration. However vile and despicable the views expressed on the site, they have a constitutional right to it. If they indulge in illegal activities, alerting law enforcement is the recommended course of action, just li…
This comment basically ensures that it will be difficult to really discuss what's going on with Dreamhost and the DOJ, and that we'll all instead have to grapple with some other issue you prefer. That's not a polite thing to do to an HN thread.
Re: DOJ Demands Files on Anti-Trump Activists, and DreamHost Resists
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
> On an un-related matter, domain registrars (Google, Go-Daddy) shouldn't be the ones censoring free speech of the alt-right by revoking Daily Stormer's registration. However vile and despicable the views expressed on the site, they have a constitutional right to it. Google and GoDaddy are not beholden to the constitution and are well within their rights to reject the Daily Stormer. White supremacy isn't a suspect cl…
No it's not legal. Additionally, is against net neutrality. Do you believe in net neutrality?
Re: DOJ Demands Files on Anti-Trump Activists, and DreamHost Resists
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder where we draw the line, particularly with ubiquitous companies like Google, Facebook, and ISPs. Would you be ok if Comcast decided to disallow you from accessing sites they determine are offensive? Or filesharing? Or porn? Even if it is their right to do so, it'd make me uncomfortable.
There's no planet on which you can lump those three together. One provides access to the internet, one provides a service on top of it. ISPs can and should be regulated... in fact they should pass a law... maybe call it net neutrality. That is where we should draw the line, beginning and end of story. If google deems a site offensive and doesn't want to return it in search listings, I'll find another search engine. I…
Domain registrars look more like utilities, e.g. ISPs, than applications, e.g. Google.
Re: DOJ Demands Files on Anti-Trump Activists, and DreamHost Resists
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
"No Nazis" is a perfectly fine side to draw the line on, in my book.
Yes - a moral line. However, censoring speech, however vile the said speech is, is illegal and not compliant with net neutrality
Re: DOJ Demands Files on Anti-Trump Activists, and DreamHost Resists
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
"No Nazis" is a perfectly fine side to draw the line on, in my book.
Yes - a moral line. However, censoring speech, however vile the said speech is, is illegal and not compliant with net neutrality
Re: DOJ Demands Files on Anti-Trump Activists, and DreamHost Resists
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
>And Google and Go-Daddy have a right to deny service to anyone they like People keep saying this but I don't think it is true at all. Not trying to be inflammatory, but that wasn't too popular of an opinion when it was the bakery refusing to make a cake for a gay couple
The reason being sexual orientation is a protected class. "Belief in white supremacy" is not.
I could be mistaken.