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

101–110 of 163 posts

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#101

Post by interstitial »

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

I agree all avowed socialist (like Nazis) should be banned from the internet. We've got our work cut out.

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#102

Post by Rusky »

briholt wrote: post #55
archagon wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does it have to be either/or? Society does not operate by strictly logical principles. I see no problem with "mostly free speech, except for extremists".

"Extremists" like that communist agitator Martin Luther King and all those "extremist" satanic homosexuals spreading AIDS? Good thing we stopped them from speaking, right? Go to Saudi Arabia, they support free speech, except for those extremists who claim Mohamed wasn't the true prophet of Allah. Back in the USSR they supported free speech, except for those extremists who undermined worker morale. Pretending you and…

The particular speech in question matters here at some level, doesn't it? Society is messy and collaborative, and applying a first amendment-style rule to literally everyone on literally every subject is untenable.

In a sense it's even paradoxical. You can't say that everyone must uphold free speech on every subject without restricting their own freedom in some way.

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#103

Post by jgmmo »

ainiriand wrote: post #16
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.

I read this whole thing, unfortunately, to try and find the 'immiment threat of harm' and found none. This article is not a good example of what you claim I see no reason this should be seen as a threat of imminent violence. Simply saying 'so-and-so should get punched' is not, to me, a credible, real threat. Just some troll mouthing off.

Edit: that's like saying all the people who say on Twitter 'trump needs a punch to the face' are committing hate speech?

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#104

Post by Anonynom »

The dailystormer is back! Come join us on normieweb:

https://dailystormer.at/

And if we get shut down again we will always be on pedoweb:

https://dstormer6em3i4km.onion.link/

Also you can read Andrew Anglin's personal blog at:

https://andrewanglinblog.wordpress.com

and gab:

https://gab.ai/AndrewAnglin

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#105

Post by LiquidInsect »

jgmmo wrote: post #94
burkaman wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, it should give you pause. That's how civil society functions. You should care how your behavior affects other people, and you should be able to respond to immoral behavior without restricting yourself to a rigid core set of principles. The reason the first amendment is so restrained is that the government is too powerful to be trusted with any more power. But people aren't, in fact they're expected to pick up…

"don't want to live in a world where people feel comfortable doing whatever they want as long as it's legal." Lol why not? Sounds like freedom.

Because it used to be legal to own people.

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#106

Post by KGIII »

bhaak wrote: post #38
_ofdw wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

I think they tend to refer to themselves as White Nationalists.

For what it's worth, the Congolese government calls themselves democratic. So, make of it what you will.

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#107

Post by someonewhocar3s »

sporkenfang wrote: post #62
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…

So the thing about free speech is https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment the first amendment means the government shouldn't be able to suppress what you say. That's all. Corporations aren't the government and shouldn't be held to the same standards.

Law is like a standard for governance and (natural) persons.

Why exactly shouldn't corporations be kept to the same or a higher standard?

You still might object to infrastructure companies refusing infrastructure to certain parties, especially if it is political.

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#108

Post by pizza »

mullen wrote: post #48
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…

> 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. Please tell us what your business is and we'll be happy to boycott it too.

A more just, peaceful and opportune world won't be attained through the use of guilt-by-association tactics. It's ill-advised to convert otherwise totally-understandable anger against credible perceived existential threats into the targeting of any non-agreeing entity. History shows that the only possible outcome to this is that, in scaring onlookers about the turmoil in their community, it hand-delivers the justification for the boycott's censure to the government on a silver platter. This doesn't mean that the onlookers are always morally correct or never complicit, but they are always useful for invoking 'security measures'..

Not to mention that you're also more likely to (all in the name of defense against the Daily Stormer) unwittingly target a group also targeted by the Daily Stormer if mere non-action justifies retaliation, because of the Daily Stormer's lack in number compared to the breadth in scope of conditions of the boycott, all applied at a popular level.

If you want to make someone fail in public, actively give them a pedestal so they might do it in front of an audience. The side effects of devoting so much to the excision of such a small cohort comes at a bigger cost to the bigger party - unrelenting pursuit of a couple guerrillas is ruinous.

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#109

Post by burkaman »

jgmmo wrote: post #94
burkaman wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, it should give you pause. That's how civil society functions. You should care how your behavior affects other people, and you should be able to respond to immoral behavior without restricting yourself to a rigid core set of principles. The reason the first amendment is so restrained is that the government is too powerful to be trusted with any more power. But people aren't, in fact they're expected to pick up…

"don't want to live in a world where people feel comfortable doing whatever they want as long as it's legal." Lol why not? Sounds like freedom.

I don't think so, I think it sounds like people abdicating their ethical power to the government. I'd rather live in a world where people are willing to break unjust laws sometimes, and uphold morals that don't exist in law. The government should not dictate our morals and culture.

For example, we have a culture that (rightly) discourages lying, but making lying illegal would be a disaster.

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#110

Post by CaptSpify »

sporkenfang wrote: post #62
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…

So the thing about free speech is https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment the first amendment means the government shouldn't be able to suppress what you say. That's all. Corporations aren't the government and shouldn't be held to the same standards.

I don't see anyone claiming that the government is preventing speech here. Just because it's legal for the company to deny their services, doesn't mean that said company can't be criticized for it.
Post reply on HN