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

31–40 of 163 posts

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#31

Post by _ofdw »

abritinthebay wrote: post #24
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…

It absolutely does meet those criteria and then some. They aren’t called Nazi’s because people disagree with them but because they are actual Nazis

Wouldn't "actual Nazis" be members of the German National Socialist Party?

Pedantic, perhaps, but I think the proper term for these people is "racists" or "white supremacists" (edit: or even better, Neonazis) . I find the term "Nazi" to be overused in the modern discourse, often hyperbolic in nature, usually to refer to people who lean right of political centre.

Not sure why down voters appear to disagree : I prefer to call a spade a spade.

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#32

Post by wolco »

systems wrote: post #13
wnevets wrote: post #6

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

and .. easydns is canadian i think the legal structure for this relationship would be different

I don't think this is a legal issue but a moral issue. By siding with the moral majority this companies loses the ability to position itself as a baston of privacy and open speech. It is easy to say you support an idea but when presented with a choice this company decided to act differently. A light needs to shine on these imposters because when we really need privacy and openness we can't be fooled into trusting them.

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#33

Post by joshuaheard »

This is part of a disturbing new trend of "political discrimination". If someone opposes the policies of an identity group, in this case mixed-race marriages, but it could be women, gays, or rural white Christians, then that opposition is labeled "hate". Once labeled, their speech is deemed offensive and censored, and they become fair game for political discrimination, to be fired from their jobs, kicked off social media, and otherwise ostracized.

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#34

Post by jpindar »

feld wrote: post #25
minikites wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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?

*always refers to government interference to speech

Are you sure you're not thinking of "the first amendment" rather than "free speech"?

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#35

Post by IronWolve »

With companies now coming up with exceptions to their free speech ideology, whats the technical solution? Seems the only place left for these unwanted groups, the dark web of tor.

The thing that interests me is technical issues of a site nobody wants to host. Deny them DNS, Deny them DDOS protection, Deny them hosting, whats left?

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#36

Post by nailer »

minikites wrote: post #27
mayank wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm saying it's a somewhat nonsensical viewpoint, imagine substituting another governmental protection. Do you support businesses that oppose quartering soldiers in the homes of citizens? "Free speech" applies to the rights granted/enforced/protected by government and businesses are operating on a different level than that.

The OP (and myself) consider freedom of speech is an ethical right that everyone should support. I live in the UK, we don't have a first amendment, but I still support freedom of speech.

The viral video in Baidu this week is of a student activist in Hong Kong who supports freedom of speech, and her speech (independence for Hong Kong) is explicitly illegal.

After we let people speak, and we dislike the speech, we can can then mock, disagree with, and poke fun at it, using our own freedom of speech.

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#37

Post by KekDemaga »

minikites wrote: post #27
mayank wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm saying it's a somewhat nonsensical viewpoint, imagine substituting another governmental protection. Do you support businesses that oppose quartering soldiers in the homes of citizens? "Free speech" applies to the rights granted/enforced/protected by government and businesses are operating on a different level than that.

>Do you support businesses that oppose quartering soldiers in the homes of citizens?

Given the option I'd pick them over a alternative.

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#38

Post by bhaak »

_ofdw wrote: post #31
abritinthebay wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It absolutely does meet those criteria and then some. They aren’t called Nazi’s because people disagree with them but because they are actual Nazis

Wouldn't "actual Nazis" be members of the German National Socialist Party? Pedantic, perhaps, but I think the proper term for these people is "racists" or "white supremacists" (edit: or even better, Neonazis) . I find the term "Nazi" to be overused in the modern discourse, often hyperbolic in nature, usually to refer to people who lean right of political centre. Not sure why down voters appear to disagree : I prefer…

Yes, you are right. Only those people that were actual members of the party were called "Nazis".

Today in German, those that are still living are sometimes called "Altnazi", old nazi, to distinguish the racist people that follow their ideology but can't possibly have been alive at that time.

The latter are more precisely called "Neonazi", but that is often shortened to just "Nazi".

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#39

Post by marchenko »

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.

The civil rights era argument outlines a pretty solid meta-principle. Certain public accomodations should be open to all. I think this list should be limited, but a public service that effectively acts as a gateway to public speech could be argued to meet the criteria. I think we're seeing an illustration of the point(also made during the civil rights era) that the cost of discriminating against a disliked minority can in fact be very low, so low that the market tolerates this inefficiency. Or perhaps it isn't irrational at all, as the market majority may indeed reward the discriminator for providing this non-monetary good. I hope they find a provider, on principle.

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#40

Post by mayank »

minikites wrote: post #27
mayank wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm saying it's a somewhat nonsensical viewpoint, imagine substituting another governmental protection. Do you support businesses that oppose quartering soldiers in the homes of citizens? "Free speech" applies to the rights granted/enforced/protected by government and businesses are operating on a different level than that.

"Free speech" as a concept extends far behind and beyond the First Amendment, which is the US statute you're alluding to.

There's nothing nonsensical about a person believing in absolute free speech as a core value and supporting businesses that share that value.

Just because you don't share a value doesn't make it "nonsensical".

Post reply on HN