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

71–80 of 163 posts

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#71

Post by minikites »

KekDemaga wrote: post #37
minikites wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I suppose I'm still not conveying my point (or I'm misunderstanding the points of others).

Either way (pro-quartering/speech or anti-quartering/speech) a business has no impact on those rights. A business can't decide to quarter soldiers in your house. A business can't "restrict" free speech (unless that business is a complete monopoly in that market, a separate issue) as a user can easily find another registrar or start their own registrar to meet their needs.

Put another way, if your local theater won't allow you to show "Triumph of the Will", that's not a restriction on your speech, because you can start your own theater.

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#72

Post by MichaelGG »

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?

No they are not Nazis anymore than I'm a Freemason because I say I am and hang some of their symbols up. Even less so, because Freemasons as a group are still active, the NSDAP is defunct.

It's just that saying "literal fucking nazis" sounds so much more dramatic than "Neo Nazis" or " fucktards pretending to be nazis".

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#73

Post by Hoasi »

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…

> if you're trying to position yourself as "the free speech registrar", but draw the line at white supremacy because you're in an interracial marriage, then the signal I get from that is that you clearly don't cherish all free speech

Not really. Free speech works both ways. You can't fault Mark's logic here.

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#74

Post by submersiveblue »

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".

What is free speech for if not to protect "extremist" speech? Under your rubric, we'll just call whatever we don't like "extremism" and suppress it and that would be allowing free speech.

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#75

Post by 0xbear »

There was an article in WSJ yesterday highlighting the hypocrisy of Big Tech when it comes to Net Neutrality. Everyone keeps railing against telecoms that they might start censoring things or making them unprofitable, while there isn't a single example of that anyone can name. Yet there are a lot of recent examples where tech companies censor or demonetize the material they don't like. Daily Stormer is an extreme example, of course, but there are far less extreme ones as well. The other day Dave Rubin got a lot of his videos demonetized without explanation. There's no "hate speech" in his videos and never was. And that's just one example out of dozens just recently.

You can't eat your cake and have it too. Tech companies should not be in the business of censoring views they dislike, even in the extreme cases such as this one, especially if they insist that telecoms must operate like utilities.

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#77

Post by leeleelee »

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".

Because then you're just applying a subjective set of rules and only protecting speech you agree with. The purpose of free speech is to ensure a world where no entity (such as the government) can dictate what is acceptable and unacceptable speech based on the sole views whatever party happens to be in control. I.e. do you want a trump administration to modify free speech to be "mostly free speech, except for extremists"? Do you think your view of extremists closely aligns with their view?

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#78

Post by minikites »

mayank wrote: post #40
minikites wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Please share your definition of "absolute free speech", as the government has defined many exceptions and regularly limits the speech of citizens. Would your definition exclude those exceptions?

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#79

Post by problems »

mrguyorama wrote: post #67
ceejayoz wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Deny them DNS, Deny them DDOS protection, Deny them hosting, whats left? I mean, not being a neo-Nazi is an option...

The fear that most Free Speech absolutists have is that tomorrow it will be: "I mean, not being a socialist|capitalist|religious individual is an option..." From an Ideals perspective, its a valid and valiant fear, but I don't understand the absolutist position. Legitimate verbal threats are still allowed under absolute free speech, but they obviously produce harm. Should we really allow anyone to threaten the life o…

I think this has been answered many times over, even the most extreme free speech absolutists tend to agree that direct, specific threats are unacceptable. General, non-specific threats and expressing joy about violent acts however... opinions vary.

Re: EasyDNS refuses to host The DailyStormer domain

#80

Post by pasquinelli »

Waterluvian wrote: post #29

> 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 think the point of the argument is that you can't pick and choose when discrimination is OK. But then the second half, about corporate Darwinism, is a moral escape hatch,…

"There is no one-size-fits-all solution. Right vs. wrong will be a 'you know it when you see it' case by case basis."

this is something i observe people, especially intelligent people, rejecting almost out of reflex, and it bothers me more and more. reasoning from first principles and justifying each step of reasoning is fine, but it is only an exercise in making models and thinking through those models. the general terms you make up along the way are only objects of your thinking. in actual reality there are only unique, concrete circumstances. human judgement has a place, but so often people act as if it doesn't, and they act as if holding that view makes them less biased-- not biased by their own judgement, i suppose. but it doesn't, they only apply that treatment to everything... but for some things it never occurs to them. their biases are still there, hidden in their tepidness, even if they never say this or that is wrong, or because the never say this or that is wrong.

Post reply on HN