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

121–130 of 163 posts

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#121

Post by StuntPope »

drivingmenuts wrote: post #81

>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. That is an odd position for a man in a mixed-race marriage with a mixed-race child to take, because not too long ago it would have meant his child might not be served or seated. It's only because our government took steps to end discrimination (after being forced to d…

> That is an odd position for a man in a mixed-race marriage with a mixed-race child to take, because not too long ago it would have meant his child might not be served or seated.

That's not an odd position at all. Would I want to force some white supremacist line cook and their inbred waiter to serve my wife and child in their restaurant? No thanks. I'll go somewhere else.

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#122

Post by bmelton »

Frondo wrote: post #59
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…

Preface: this is an honest question, stemming from my own life and current group of friends--the circumstances that frame the issue for me--it isn't intended as snark or a take-down or anything... Do you have many friends right now who are people of color, or queer/gay, or even Jewish? How do you explain to them that you'd like to support the business that goes against the grain and hosts Nazi/white supremacist mater…

I have friends who are women / Jewish / black / brown / trans / gay / queer, etc, and because I feel it's somewhat implied, no, I do not have any friends who are nazis, neo-nazis, white nationalists, white supremacists, etc. I do have a co-worker who voted for Trump though.

I think anyone who knows me already knows that I value speech a great deal, and I consider it to be almost certainly the greatest ideal that we have. It is, as almost all my friends have probably heard me say, the one thing America gets more right than anywhere else. I've had a couple of websites utterly ruined by the fact that I refused to impose censorship upon them.

I dearly understand the position that EasyDNS is in, and I'm sorry that they are in it. On the flip side, I'm glad that they decided to announce to the world that their 'Free speech' principles have limits instead of quietly refusing service. That they felt the need to broadcast the limits of their respect for free speech is, to my opinion, a good thing, just not in the way that they might have expected. I'm sure they'll get lots of business out of it. People often like to ally the businesses they deal with to their own moral interests, which is almost certainly why they posted it, and decidedly why I'm turned off by it. If I see another company who respects speech enough that they'd be willing to do business with nazis, then maybe I'm on to something... or maybe not. I dunno. I'd still expect it to be a good DNS service, of course.

I feel where people get mixed up on this is that while I can totally and fully condemn nazis doing nazi violence, I have zero problems allowing nazis to talk about whatever nazis talk about. Sure, it's up to whomever owns the business they have to decide whether or not they wish to do business with any particular person or company or whomever, but I dislike the precedent, because it's not too farfetched for me to imagine Antifa, Black Lives Matter, The NRA, or even the ACLU on the wrong side of that line if and when public opinion ever gets codified into law.

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#123

Post by abritinthebay »

_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…

Depends on if you care about the semantic difference between Neo-Nazi and Nazi.

Outside of historical discussions: I do not.

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

No more so than to be a libertarian you need to be a member of the Libertarian Party. Or that said National Socialists were socialists.

Post-WW2 the term "Nazi" has been widely recognized to refer to a grouping of people that idolize or share the ideology of the Nazi regime and it's descendant movements.

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#124

Post by charonn0 »

archagon wrote: post #50
briholt wrote: post #43

Another cowardly "free speech but..." Either you support free speech (including Nazis or whatever today's boogeyman is) or you don't support free speech at all. Claiming you support free speech only when you like the speech is abjectly idiotic. When you start blocking people from using your service for their speech, it's time to stop calling yourself the "free speech registrar."

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".

Free speech protections are even more important when the speaker is labelled "extreme" by the powers that be.

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#125

Post by abritinthebay »

cpursley wrote: post #51
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

> because they are actual Nazis I'm not defending these people, but are they really Nazis? Or just angry, uneducated and disenfranchised white people?

Why not both?

If you support modern nazi talking points, causes, rhetoric, actions, or regularly give them money (via page views, donation, or merch) then you're almost certainly a nazi. Doesn't matter if someone is white, poor, rich, disenfranchised, privileged, whatever.

Note - I am not making a distinction between historical nazism and neo-nazis because we're talking about the present day not WW2. Modern Nazi's are the Daily Stormer and their ilk.

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#126

Post by charonn0 »

> I’ve stated numerous times in the past that I uphold the right for any business to decide for themselves who they will or will not conduct business with. In the long run I firmly believe an unfettered free market would sort out who is on the right side or the wrong side of history.

> That means that you can’t force a bible-thumping fundamentalist baker to make a cake for a gay wedding if he doesn’t want to.

> 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.

Unfortunately, it doesn't always work that way. Consider just how pervasive and resilient segregation was; or, how a restaurant might actually attract business from like-minded customers who want to make a point (e.g. Chik-fil-a)

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#127

Post by hungerstrike »

archagon wrote: post #44
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…

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.

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#128

Post by Rusky »

pizza wrote: post #119
Rusky wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#129

Post by StuntPope »

Domenic_S wrote: post #87
sporkenfang wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is such an intellectually lazy stance to take (I know, you thought you were being clever, but believe me this is the least clever thing to say about free speech). 1A doesn't have anything to do with it -- either free speech is a concept worth protecting, or it isn't. John Stuart Mill wrote at some length about it, and in particular about what happens when the population at large decides they don't like your spee…

This is an excellent point, it is something I worry about and something we've blogged about in our two previous posts about this topic.

It's one of the reasons I'm so wary when flashmobs try to force other businesses to dump specific clients.

It's one thing if your views or actions or so repugnant that all suppliers voluntarily refrain from doing business with you. Maybe one would reconsider their actions faced with that prospect?

But the phenomenon today, where flashmobs form and demand vendors sever their clients because the mob is demanding it and for the reason that the target is politically or ideologically at odds with the mob, that can play out exactly as you fear. Where does that stop?

This is one of those cases where there wasn't an easy answer, unfortunately. Dreamhost unknowingly wound up with a Dailystormer domain on their system last week and they got DDoS-ed into a crater. Also not good.

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#130

Post by bmelton »

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.

While technically correct, I don't understand how this has any bearing to my earlier response.

I explicitly state that I do not condemn EasyDNS for choosing to exercise their freedom of (dis)association in whatever manner they see fit. I would simply prefer to do business with someone whom I didn't have to guess at the moral convictions of, and obviate having to guess at whether or not the speech of users on a forum I host are crossing a line that I can't foresee, and would prefer to do business with a vendor where that wasn't something I had to worry about, even if it means having shitty neighbors.

Post reply on HN