DOJ Demands Files on Anti-Trump Activists, and DreamHost Resists • Hacker News Board

Re: DOJ Demands Files on Anti-Trump Activists, and DreamHost Resists

#41

Post by tptacek » Wed, Aug 16, 2017, 7:52 PM UTC

mankash666 wrote: post #4

This is the proper thing to do for DreamHost. On an un-related matter, domain registrars (Google, Go-Daddy) shouldn't be the ones censoring free speech of the alt-right by revoking Daily Stormer's registration. However vile and despicable the views expressed on the site, they have a constitutional right to it. If they indulge in illegal activities, alerting law enforcement is the recommended course of action, just li…

This comment basically ensures that it will be difficult to really discuss what's going on with Dreamhost and the DOJ, and that we'll all instead have to grapple with some other issue you prefer. That's not a polite thing to do to an HN thread.

Re: DOJ Demands Files on Anti-Trump Activists, and DreamHost Resists

#42

Post by koenigdavidmj » Wed, Aug 16, 2017, 7:52 PM UTC

nostromo wrote: post #18

whateveracct wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On an un-related matter, domain registrars (Google, Go-Daddy) shouldn't be the ones censoring free speech of the alt-right by revoking Daily Stormer's registration. However vile and despicable the views expressed on the site, they have a constitutional right to it. Google and GoDaddy are not beholden to the constitution and are well within their rights to reject the Daily Stormer. White supremacy isn't a suspect cl…

I wonder where we draw the line, particularly with ubiquitous companies like Google, Facebook, and ISPs. Would you be ok if Comcast decided to disallow you from accessing sites they determine are offensive? Or filesharing? Or porn? Even if it is their right to do so, it'd make me uncomfortable.

ISPs are common carriers, requiring them not to do this. (Same thing with airlines, as another example; they would not be allowed to deny someone transport because they became aware that that person was participating in the Charlottesville thing, like Airbnb did.)

Google and Facebook are not common carriers, so they are under no obligation to be content-neutral. (If you're arguing that they should be common carriers, that's a perfectly fruitful discussion to have.)

Re: DOJ Demands Files on Anti-Trump Activists, and DreamHost Resists

#43

Post by eropple » Wed, Aug 16, 2017, 7:53 PM UTC

0x00000000 wrote: post #20

Stefan-H wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Google and Go-Daddy have a right to deny service to anyone they like. The constitution only protects individuals from the government infringing on their right to free speech.

>And Google and Go-Daddy have a right to deny service to anyone they like People keep saying this but I don't think it is true at all. Not trying to be inflammatory, but that wasn't too popular of an opinion when it was the bakery refusing to make a cake for a gay couple

That bakery was not forced to do anything they didn't want to (sexual orientation is protected from discrimination in some contexts but is not a fully recognized protected class). That decent people think that they're assholes for their decision to deny service is orthogonal to whether they had a right to deny service. And, in turn, Nazi symps and merchants of false equivalency can think Google and GoDaddy are assholes for refusing service to Nazis.

Re: DOJ Demands Files on Anti-Trump Activists, and DreamHost Resists

#44

Post by thegayngler » Wed, Aug 16, 2017, 7:53 PM UTC

mulmen wrote: post #28

0x00000000 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And Google and Go-Daddy have a right to deny service to anyone they like People keep saying this but I don't think it is true at all. Not trying to be inflammatory, but that wasn't too popular of an opinion when it was the bakery refusing to make a cake for a gay couple

Sexual orientation is (or at least should be) protected so it cannot be used as the basis for discrimination, neither can race or religion. Being an inflammatory racist is not (and should not be) protected.

This is not true. Sexual orientation is not a protected class in the constitution. I hate it but that's the facts.

Re: DOJ Demands Files on Anti-Trump Activists, and DreamHost Resists

#45

Post by Akujin » Wed, Aug 16, 2017, 7:53 PM UTC

nostromo wrote: post #18

whateveracct wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On an un-related matter, domain registrars (Google, Go-Daddy) shouldn't be the ones censoring free speech of the alt-right by revoking Daily Stormer's registration. However vile and despicable the views expressed on the site, they have a constitutional right to it. Google and GoDaddy are not beholden to the constitution and are well within their rights to reject the Daily Stormer. White supremacy isn't a suspect cl…

I wonder where we draw the line, particularly with ubiquitous companies like Google, Facebook, and ISPs. Would you be ok if Comcast decided to disallow you from accessing sites they determine are offensive? Or filesharing? Or porn? Even if it is their right to do so, it'd make me uncomfortable.

No one has a problem when they remove sites affiliated with ISIS but apparently Nazis should be given a pass because "free speech". Uh huh.....

Re: DOJ Demands Files on Anti-Trump Activists, and DreamHost Resists

#46

Post by tw04 » Wed, Aug 16, 2017, 7:53 PM UTC

nostromo wrote: post #18

whateveracct wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On an un-related matter, domain registrars (Google, Go-Daddy) shouldn't be the ones censoring free speech of the alt-right by revoking Daily Stormer's registration. However vile and despicable the views expressed on the site, they have a constitutional right to it. Google and GoDaddy are not beholden to the constitution and are well within their rights to reject the Daily Stormer. White supremacy isn't a suspect cl…

I wonder where we draw the line, particularly with ubiquitous companies like Google, Facebook, and ISPs. Would you be ok if Comcast decided to disallow you from accessing sites they determine are offensive? Or filesharing? Or porn? Even if it is their right to do so, it'd make me uncomfortable.

There's no planet on which you can lump those three together. One provides access to the internet, one provides a service on top of it.

ISPs can and should be regulated... in fact they should pass a law... maybe call it net neutrality.

That is where we should draw the line, beginning and end of story. If google deems a site offensive and doesn't want to return it in search listings, I'll find another search engine. I don't use facebook and couldn't care less what they do or don't display. If it's vital to you, pick a different social network.

ISPs on the other hand are a utility and should be treated as such. The DOT doesn't get to tell me which stores I can visit before I pull onto the highway. My ISP shouldn't have any right to tell me which websites I can visit either.

Re: DOJ Demands Files on Anti-Trump Activists, and DreamHost Resists

#47

Post by mulmen » Wed, Aug 16, 2017, 7:53 PM UTC

mankash666 wrote: post #34

whateveracct wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On an un-related matter, domain registrars (Google, Go-Daddy) shouldn't be the ones censoring free speech of the alt-right by revoking Daily Stormer's registration. However vile and despicable the views expressed on the site, they have a constitutional right to it. Google and GoDaddy are not beholden to the constitution and are well within their rights to reject the Daily Stormer. White supremacy isn't a suspect cl…

No it's not legal. Additionally, is against net neutrality. Do you believe in net neutrality?

This has nothing to do with net neutrality. Google is well within their rights to terminate these accounts.

Re: DOJ Demands Files on Anti-Trump Activists, and DreamHost Resists

#48

Post by twinkletwinkle » Wed, Aug 16, 2017, 7:53 PM UTC

School-Cotton wrote: post #30

whateveracct wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On an un-related matter, domain registrars (Google, Go-Daddy) shouldn't be the ones censoring free speech of the alt-right by revoking Daily Stormer's registration. However vile and despicable the views expressed on the site, they have a constitutional right to it. Google and GoDaddy are not beholden to the constitution and are well within their rights to reject the Daily Stormer. White supremacy isn't a suspect cl…

edit... i stand correct, didn't read closely enough

They said just that-

"However vile and despicable the views expressed on the site, they have a constitutional right to it"

They have a constitutional right to express those views. They do not have a constitutional right to express those views on a GoDaddy-hosted domain.

Re: DOJ Demands Files on Anti-Trump Activists, and DreamHost Resists

#49

Post by roywiggins » Wed, Aug 16, 2017, 7:53 PM UTC

mankash666 wrote: post #40

ceejayoz wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"No Nazis" is a perfectly fine side to draw the line on, in my book.

Yes - a moral line. However, censoring speech, however vile the said speech is, is illegal and not compliant with net neutrality

No webhost is obligated to host anyone who asks. That's not what net neutrality is about at all.

Re: DOJ Demands Files on Anti-Trump Activists, and DreamHost Resists

#50

Post by BearGoesChirp » Wed, Aug 16, 2017, 7:55 PM UTC

whateveracct wrote: post #7

mankash666 wrote: post #4

This is the proper thing to do for DreamHost. On an un-related matter, domain registrars (Google, Go-Daddy) shouldn't be the ones censoring free speech of the alt-right by revoking Daily Stormer's registration. However vile and despicable the views expressed on the site, they have a constitutional right to it. If they indulge in illegal activities, alerting law enforcement is the recommended course of action, just li…

> On an un-related matter, domain registrars (Google, Go-Daddy) shouldn't be the ones censoring free speech of the alt-right by revoking Daily Stormer's registration. However vile and despicable the views expressed on the site, they have a constitutional right to it. Google and GoDaddy are not beholden to the constitution and are well within their rights to reject the Daily Stormer. White supremacy isn't a suspect cl…

While we remain on the off topic, what happens if it is a private company providing a service that seems very similar to one the government provides? Imagine if eventually USPS went away, could FedEx/UPS decide to not do business with a group they didn't like (say no mail for anyone under 30)? What if all public libraries were eventually replaced by private ones and any pro-liberal material removed?

I think discussing Constitution protections from the government should include discussions on protections applying when the government allows the private sector to take over some of its work. If privatization reduces constitutional protections... that feels a bit like an exploit, not an intended feature.