Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

easydns.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 163 posts

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#11

Post by msla »

amluto wrote: post #5

> It even means a restaurant should be able to refuse to seat (pick one): black people, white people, males, redheads, left-handed people or introverts. Whatever. They probably won’t stay in business very long, it’s a form of corporate Darwinism. I wonder how the civil rights era would have gone if the courts agreed.

> It even means a restaurant should be able to refuse to seat (pick one): black people, white people, males, redheads, left-handed people or introverts. Whatever. They probably won’t stay in business very long, it’s a form of corporate Darwinism.

I find it ironic that this is (presumably) precisely the position The Daily Stormer would take on those issues.

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#14

Post by mayank »

minikites wrote: post #9
bmelton wrote: post #3

Somewhat dichotomously, I agree with every position mark takes in the linked post, but at the same time, I'm quietly waiting to see where Daily Stormer ends up landing, so that I can start treating them as the 'real' bastions of free speech, and very likely start throwing them my business. It isn't because I'm sympathetic to the nazis in this scenario, but if you're trying to position yourself as "the free speech reg…

"Free speech" usually refers to government interference to speech, why should a business be required to make what they see as a bad business decision?

OP is saying they want to support a private business that voluntarily shares the government's mandate on free speech, even when they are not required to.

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#15

Post by mejin »

minikites wrote: post #9
bmelton wrote: post #3

Somewhat dichotomously, I agree with every position mark takes in the linked post, but at the same time, I'm quietly waiting to see where Daily Stormer ends up landing, so that I can start treating them as the 'real' bastions of free speech, and very likely start throwing them my business. It isn't because I'm sympathetic to the nazis in this scenario, but if you're trying to position yourself as "the free speech reg…

"Free speech" usually refers to government interference to speech, why should a business be required to make what they see as a bad business decision?

For the same reason that there is net neutrality. So that the few unelected officials don't decide what the mass is allowed to see.

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#16

Post by ainiriand »

patrickmay wrote: post #8

In an earlier post ( https://www.easydns.com/blog/2017/09/06/why-does-easydns-pro... ) supporting free expression, EasyDNS says that they will only refuse service to sites that advocate or encourage "physical violence or harm toward an identifiable minority." I have never been to the DailyStormer site, so I don't know if they meet that criteria. If they don't, EasyDNS, while well within their rights, is not living up…

Random page: https://web.archive.org/web/20170516210944/https://www.daily... Asking people to be beaten up.

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#17

Post by msla »

resiros wrote: post #7

"It even means a restaurant should be able to refuse to seat (pick one): black people, white people, males, redheads, left-handed people or introverts. Whatever. They probably won’t stay in business very long, it’s a form of corporate Darwinism." Well unless, racism, islamophobie, or antisemitism are en vogue, then the minority is screwed.

Right. Societies without a government, or without an effective government, have no succor for the despised minority: If the majority hates you, nobody except the government can push back on that hatred.

Racism is like pollution, in that being the first to stop doing it has disastrous downsides, even if you don't like the end result. It's a Nash Equilibrium.

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#18

Post by msla »

eli wrote: post #12
wnevets wrote: post #6

People like to forget that private companies don't have to care about your first amendment rights.

They do have to care about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 though.

They're Canadian.

Notwithstanding that, there might well be similar laws in Canada.

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#19

Post by Waterluvian »

msla wrote: post #11
amluto wrote: post #5

> It even means a restaurant should be able to refuse to seat (pick one): black people, white people, males, redheads, left-handed people or introverts. Whatever. They probably won’t stay in business very long, it’s a form of corporate Darwinism. I wonder how the civil rights era would have gone if the courts agreed.

> It even means a restaurant should be able to refuse to seat (pick one): black people, white people, males, redheads, left-handed people or introverts. Whatever. They probably won’t stay in business very long, it’s a form of corporate Darwinism. I find it ironic that this is (presumably) precisely the position The Daily Stormer would take on those issues.

I demand you serve me a product to help me not serve your kind here!

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#20

Post by striking »

minikites wrote: post #9
bmelton wrote: post #3

Somewhat dichotomously, I agree with every position mark takes in the linked post, but at the same time, I'm quietly waiting to see where Daily Stormer ends up landing, so that I can start treating them as the 'real' bastions of free speech, and very likely start throwing them my business. It isn't because I'm sympathetic to the nazis in this scenario, but if you're trying to position yourself as "the free speech reg…

"Free speech" usually refers to government interference to speech, why should a business be required to make what they see as a bad business decision?

This comment seems unrelated to the parent comment, as the parent makes no mention to government interference nor to any imagined requirement for a business to serve others.

I understood "free speech" in the parent comment to mean an unwillingness to censor for any reason except those related to legal matters.

It is one thing to say "we won't accept any supremacist or terrorist organization" outright; it is another to say you'll take anyone and then actually subject them to an arbitrary and unpublished terms of service.

Post reply on HN