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

141–150 of 163 posts

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#141

Post by tyleraldrich »

KGIII wrote: post #88
pnathan wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a distinction between the government repressing speech and private businesses refusing to give the speech-maker a platform. Further, certain kinds of speech have never been considered protected: "fighting words", certain classes of harassment, fomenting seditious, the famous "fire!" in a crowded theater. Note, too, it's easy to draw a line around advocating for racial supremacy and genocide without stepping o…

Would you agree, then, that Internet access is now a basic human right? If so, would you also agree that said access should include some platform where one is entitled to ownership and thus the freedom of expression - within the bounds of the law? I really dislike Nazis, but I love the liberty of free speech more. It's hard to stand up for them, but it's not 'correct' speech that needs protection. And no, no I don't…

The platform isn't being taken away, they can have their free speech hosted in some guys garage and accessible at x.x.x.x

I'm not accusing you of acting this way, but there are many "regulation is bad!" folks who now seem to think when it comes to hosting content on the internet, maybe it should be regulated so that private companies can't block people from doing basic things like registering a domain name if the company doesn't like it. This is the free market at work, and if the free market decides some speech is wrong, that's the free market America signed up for.

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#142

Post by bmelton »

hungerstrike wrote: post #127
archagon wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, but isn't it just as likely that you'll land on a registrar that is notorious for specifically hosting seedy stuff (perhaps even under the guise of free speech)? I wouldn't be comfortable giving my money to an organization like that, at all.

I was thinking that the ultimate response could be to start your own registrar. However, I have no idea how difficult that would be.

Actually, I looked into it, and aside from the $10k initial fee for ICANN (which might be avoidable?), it didn't look all that difficult to set up.

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#143

Post by joshuaheard »

sleepychu wrote: post #83
joshuaheard wrote: post #33

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 m…

Can you explain what you mean by the "policies of an identity group"? In general the minority identity groups only policy is that they ought to be treated just like everyone else. I'd say that if you're trying to maintain a status quo where the majority is treated preferentially that your opposition is "hate" as is meant by the word today.

I'm referring to identity politics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_politics).

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#144

Post by notyourday »

pnathan wrote: post #65
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…

There's a distinction between the government repressing speech and private businesses refusing to give the speech-maker a platform. Further, certain kinds of speech have never been considered protected: "fighting words", certain classes of harassment, fomenting seditious, the famous "fire!" in a crowded theater. Note, too, it's easy to draw a line around advocating for racial supremacy and genocide without stepping o…

> There's a distinction between the government repressing speech and private businesses refusing to give the speech-maker a platform.

So you do not support net neutrality, correct?

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#145

Post by feld »

jpindar wrote: post #34
feld wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

*always refers to government interference to speech

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

Of course I'm talking about the first amendment, the only protection of free speech that exists in the USA. Any time someone brings up free speech and it's involving non-government entitites is just kidding themselves that they believe they have a "right" to express their views however they want.

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#146

Post by bhaak »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #52
bhaak wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Perhaps the parent is confused as I am: Do these Nazis want "German Socialism" to take over in USA, so be ruled from Germany? If not then I think calling them Nazis definitely needs clarification. Genuine confusion for me. Nazi to me is someone who wants to resurrect Hitler and be ruled by the Fatherland; that seems incongruent with what I expect from USA white supremacist??

"Nazi" derives from the word "National Socialism", it's not inherently German in that regard, they just invented it. The ideology isn't tied to one nation.

You can read about nazism in the US here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazism#United_States

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#147

Post by KGIII »

tyleraldrich wrote: post #141
KGIII wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you agree, then, that Internet access is now a basic human right? If so, would you also agree that said access should include some platform where one is entitled to ownership and thus the freedom of expression - within the bounds of the law? I really dislike Nazis, but I love the liberty of free speech more. It's hard to stand up for them, but it's not 'correct' speech that needs protection. And no, no I don't…

The platform isn't being taken away, they can have their free speech hosted in some guys garage and accessible at x.x.x.x I'm not accusing you of acting this way, but there are many "regulation is bad!" folks who now seem to think when it comes to hosting content on the internet, maybe it should be regulated so that private companies can't block people from doing basic things like registering a domain name if the com…

Presenting using only the IP address as a solution is intellectually dishonest. Additionally, I'm unsure of why you'd suggest there was a specific group of people and simultaneously assert that they are irrelevant to my comment.

Feel free to levy any accusations about me that you want. However, I think my comment history stands as evidence. I'm not asserting that this is a right. I'm asserting that it should be a right.

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#148

Post by pizza »

Rusky wrote: post #128
pizza wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The paradox being "either 'everyone must let others speak freely' or 'you are free to decide when others can't speak freely' but not both?" Why would this paradox arise in a just society? Specifically the second condition. My (Kantian) ethical justification for the first is "in any situation where I use the rule, I would want its use to be universally established", whereas in the second condition it is clearly false…

"you are free to decide when others can't speak freely" is a bit reductionist considering we're talking about a platform providing the capability for others' speech. Other situations that introduce nuance are private spaces, individuals' social media feeds, etc. It's not about "freedom" to restrict others' speech- it's about freedom not to support it or to listen to it.

Fair enough, I see how providing the medium for another person's actions is different than putting yourself in a position of authority over them.

That said, there is an argument to be made that a host should not worry that they are partly to blame for, or that their non-intervention suggests tacit approval of, a user's detestable messages - simply because the host just isn't accountable for the user's actions. The solution to not supporting it, imo, is to be explicit about the host's scope of permissions and banned content right up front, before problems occur, because then the responsibility for the user to not do so is recorded. [If the agreement clause is really vague and allows nearly anything, it doesn't change that the user can expect it to be used.]

Freedom to not listen to speech is in my opinion just as valid as the freedom to speak; maybe I'd call it the freedom to silence :P

[An extreme example of Kant is that, if a murderer asks, you should tell them where the person they say they are going to kill is, instead of lying. The reason goes: right and wrong having nothing to do with morality (universal law) so you can't justify lying to the murderer if you see them as a person who is an end in themselves- rather the lie is a way to pursue a right and wrong based in single situation hypotheticals (whether you should manipulate the murderer to save lives), which means it can't derive its value to you from being universally applicable, from not originating from a categorical truth. The reason although people are worth more than a means, you still can't mislead the murderer so as to protect a valuable life, is that the potential murderer, also an undeniable end in themselves, is the one upon whom the responsibility for the murder should be placed - you are not responsible whether or not the murderer tells the truth that they will kill or if they lie. They are still totally free to choose not to murder the person after you give their location away anyway. Do I think I would act this way? I really don't think so. Another way to resolve it is to keep quiet lol]

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#149

Post by pizza »

jgmmo wrote: post #111
LiquidInsect wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it used to be legal to own people.

So because laws are not perfect, and have at times in the past illustrated issues in our society, because they are the result of a long-term evolution, they can not be trusted? Ever? Do you not think that in the long-run that our law will make all that is universally agreed to be unethical and harmful to others also illegal? What I'm saying is law marches in the direction of ever improving it's fit to society. You se…

Why should the law evolve to be more just? If anything, wouldn't the laws that were most fair be the ones that due to their age in spite of history's blows indicates preferential selection, and that age of the law may correlate to the relatively simplicity of its authoring government and hence maybe fewer externalities. We now live in a period of perennial voter disenfranchisement, and it seems that the civil rights movement will not have the lasting stopping power it was perceived to wield to cement incremental progress in our society. I think that recent legislation, although almost never as surely heinous as chattel slavery or slaughter of Native Americans or racial quotas etc., that there is a difference between the 'what we think is worth keeping' and the 'what we can expect to be exasperatingly legislated in the near future'

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#150

Post by AnimalMuppet »

pizza wrote: post #149
jgmmo wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So because laws are not perfect, and have at times in the past illustrated issues in our society, because they are the result of a long-term evolution, they can not be trusted? Ever? Do you not think that in the long-run that our law will make all that is universally agreed to be unethical and harmful to others also illegal? What I'm saying is law marches in the direction of ever improving it's fit to society. You se…

Why should the law evolve to be more just? If anything, wouldn't the laws that were most fair be the ones that due to their age in spite of history's blows indicates preferential selection, and that age of the law may correlate to the relatively simplicity of its authoring government and hence maybe fewer externalities. We now live in a period of perennial voter disenfranchisement, and it seems that the civil rights…

In particular, if you want to think of the law in evolutionary terms, it has two different pressures on it: pressure to become more just, and pressure to become a better tool to protect the powerful. It is not obvious that pressure to become more just is stronger.
Post reply on HN