5 ms·
All these companies tripping over each other to ban DailyStormer while at the same time they won't take a position against similar sites that are just as unques
by abhi3 9y ago
All these companies tripping over each other to ban DailyStormer while at the same time they won't take a position against similar sites that are just as unquestionably immoral/illegal as DailyStormer (Torrent sites, ISIS sites). One might be forgiven for thinking that this sudden moral awakening of 'Big Internet' is nothing more than a selfish PR stunt.
- peteretep 9y agoIf you think torrent sites are "just as" immoral as White Supremacy sites, your moral compass is unambiguously broken.
- madengr 9y agoWell you didn't mention the ISIS sites. Much of the torrents are actually illegal, the hate speech is protected speech.
- peteretep 9y ago"Protected" from the government, not from private entities. I would gladly support Namecheap taking down Isis sites, but is there any evidence that they aren't?
- madengr 9y agoWell what about net neutrality (my thread on that is already -2)? Neo-nazi shows are on cable access channels. I'd think the same reasoning applies.
- nine_k 9y agoThe 1st amendment protects speech from being suppressed by the state. Private entities may ban whatever they see fit, basically; you know they do if you ever read a end-user license.
- madengr 9y agoYes, I know that. We are talking about a public communications medium. If they can throttle hate speech, they can throttle Netflix. So they won't host it, they won't provide DNS resolution. How far does it go? Can't get a static IP?
- abhi3 9y agoThere's an argument to be made that piracy is illegal whereas hate speech (in USA) is not but my point was that Big Internet has no moral compass whereas you seem to want to argue with a strawman of moral equivalency between two unquestionably immoral acts.
- peteretep 9y agoIt's not a strawman because I am attacking the actual argument you made.
- abhi3 9y agoI drew an equivalency between the unquestionability of the immoral character of two acts (even that was not my central argument) and not between the relative degree immorality (which is what you decided to argue against).
- peteretep 9y agoFine then. I assumed you had considered the degree of immorality to be important, because the alternative just makes you look whichever you prefer of disingenuous or deranged. Mea cupla
- hungerstrike 9y agoThe spectrum isn't important here though. Things are either illegal or immoral or they're not. These companies are only banning this one domain because it's bad publicity right now if they don't.
- peteretep 9y agoThe law certainly thinks that where things exist on a spectrum is important, suggesting that we as a society do too. You can't use that shaky axiom as a jumping off point.
- hungerstrike 9y agoThanks for agreeing with my point. These hosts should kick all of the illegal and immoral sites off or none of them.
- _red 9y agoIn the end its a good thing for privacy (and the internet), since these antics will speed the adoption of zeronet and associated tech. A decentralized web is the next game changer that has been brewing for a few years, and now is becoming ready for prime time. Its going to represent a seismic shift in the next few years...poor Zuckerberg, et al.
- jayess 9y agoIn a sense, I agree with you. These virtual signallers make me feel icky, at the same time it motivates me to support projects to decentralize the web and support free speech for all people.