4 ms·

Link to the Namecheap post: https://blog.namecheap.com/inciting-violence-vs-freedom-speech/ https://blog.namecheap.com/inciting-violence-vs-freedom-spee... The

by ve55 9y ago

Link to the Namecheap post: https://blog.namecheap.com/inciting-violence-vs-freedom-speech/ https://blog.namecheap.com/inciting-violence-vs-freedom-spee... The Namecheap post argues in favor of revoking the domain by saying that it is inciting violence, and not just exercising free speech. As a domain registrar, there's nothing stopping you from having a policy that doesn't allow the incitement of violence. But, I wonder: how many domains has Namecheap revoked in the name of this ideal? If you're going to have a policy of what is and what is not allowed, the reason why it will be so difficult is because you need to enforce the policy on every website equally. You cannot cherry-pick one website, cite the policy, and then forget that it exists. Even if this policy is applied to every website, who is deciding what counts as incitement of violence? Can I make a violent post on a website, and then report them to Namecheap for inciting violence, or does it need to be a website administrator that makes it? How direct does the incitement need to be, given that the example provided in the blog post seems relatively indirect? I'm sure you can think of a myriad of other questions and inconsistencies with this, because there's so much room left to interpretation and bias, when it's obvious the reason the domain was revoked was due to political pressure. Given the amount of companies that have dropped the website, it's starting to set a pretty bad precedent. There's plenty of equally bad content on very large websites (Reddit, 4chan, etc), and if the standard for this content becomes to wipe it from the face of the Internet at all costs, things won't be pretty.

admiralpumpkin 9y ago
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds... Taking down a Nazi website creates no onerous obligation to police the entirety of the web. Addressing only those sites which rise to prominence admirably moves us towards a better internet and society.
- rkeene2 9y ago
  Until you (namecheap) are sued for violence that occurred because you failed to take down a website that clearly incited violence, despite it being against your terms of service, started position, and now part behavior. This may make your defense wallet in such a case because you are could now be seen as endorsing that which you do not act against when they are violating your terms. Of course, it's only one high-profile incident and it should be possible to successfully argue that you (namecheap) only act on this policy when information about the violation actively reaches you as a passive observer. But you are then playing from behind so it's still not as if this action carries no potential future liabilities.
  - ve55 9y ago
    Why would it (legally or not) be Namecheap's job to curate the content? What about the server the content is hosted on, its CDN, its DNS servers, its domain registry (not registrar), or so many other layers? If a website that incites violence can be taken down because of a single violence-inciting remark, then people will just post violent remarks on their enemies websites and proceed to get them taken down. As an administrator, whether of a domain, social network, forum, or services on other layers of the Internet, it's unreasonable to be held responsible for every single thing done by your users. That doesn't mean you have to let them do anything, but when a problem occurs, the first step should not be to start taking down websites and servers, instead of looking for a more reasonable solution.
    - soneil 9y ago
      At this point it's turned into a game of hot potato. No-one wants the bad press of being "the one who said yes". They need to find a registrar whose market position is built on taking a stance. Namecheap ain't it.
la6470 9y ago
>>>>>Given the amount of companies that have dropped the >>>>>>website, it's starting to set a pretty bad precedent. >>>>>There's plenty of equally bad content on very large >>>>>websites (Reddit, 4chan, etc), and if the standard for >>>>>this content becomes to wipe it from the face of the >>>>>Internet at all costs, things won't be pretty. It will be fine !!!
aestetix 9y ago
https://blog.namecheap.com/we-say-no-to-sopa/ https://blog.namecheap.com/we-say-no-to-sopa/ "At Namecheap, we believe having a free and open Internet is the only option that will continue the legacy of innovation and openess that stands for everything we all value in our modern society." --Namecheap CEO Richard Kendall, 2011 I'm curious what changed.
- Daishiman 9y ago
  Content that incites hatred is not free speech.
  - vageli 9y ago
    How do you "incite hatred"? Inciting violence I can understand, but I'm curious what you meant by your statement. I feel hatred can be instilled, but not sure how it can be incited.
  - jopython 9y ago
    The US Supreme court has overruled that before.
    - Daishiman 9y ago
      The US Supreme court is not the end-all-be-all of legal systems. Most European systems do consider that hate speech can be proscribed, as do most Latin American jurisdictions.
      - gspetr 9y ago
        Europe still has Lèse-majesté laws in the 21st century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A8se-majest%C3%A9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A8se-majest%C3%A9 Not to mention the Holocaust denial laws. But you can deny Armenian genocide just fine. Convenient, eh? "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." -- Voltaire.
  - JCzynski 9y ago
stordoff 9y ago
> If you're going to have a policy of what is and what is not allowed, the reason why it will be so difficult is because you need to enforce the policy on every website equally. You cannot cherry-pick one website, cite the policy, and then forget that it exists. Is perfect enforcement necessary? Of course you need to be _consistent_, but only acting when the content becomes known to you doesn't seem wholely unworkable. That said, I much prefer it if registrars remained neutral on content (with the possible exception of the domain itself being the problem - consider, e.g., assassinateUSPrez2018[.]com). e: typo fix "prefer registrars remain" -> "prefer it if registrars remained"
- ve55 9y ago
  Perfect enforcement is ideal, but definitely impossible, especially based on arbitrary policy statements like 'incites violence'. In practice they will act when content becomes known to them, but a problem with this is that it will lead to them taking down content when the Internet mobs demand it (as they will spam support tickets, emails, twitter accounts, and so on, demanding the offending website be taken down), instead of focusing on the real problems. Just like people love getting their political enemies fired from work, now they will start to realize maybe they can do even better, and can get them wiped off of the Internet as well. Every time an attack like this is made, it will further radicalize the other side, giving them further resolve to attack back and with more strength. I just can't see this ending with anything good.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> But, I wonder: how many domains has Namecheap revoked in the name of this ideal? If you're going to have a policy of what is and what is not allowed, the reason why it will be so difficult is because you need to enforce the policy on every website equally. You cannot cherry-pick one website, cite the policy, and then forget that it exists. You absolutely can do complaint-based rather than pro-active enforcement, and prioritize enforcement based on the volume and nature of the complaints.

by ve55 9y ago

admiralpumpkin 9y ago

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds... Taking down a Nazi website creates no onerous obligation to police the entirety of the web. Addressing only those sites which rise to prominence admirably moves us towards a better internet and society.

rkeene2 9y ago
Until you (namecheap) are sued for violence that occurred because you failed to take down a website that clearly incited violence, despite it being against your terms of service, started position, and now part behavior. This may make your defense wallet in such a case because you are could now be seen as endorsing that which you do not act against when they are violating your terms. Of course, it's only one high-profile incident and it should be possible to successfully argue that you (namecheap) only act on this policy when information about the violation actively reaches you as a passive observer. But you are then playing from behind so it's still not as if this action carries no potential future liabilities.
- ve55 9y ago
  Why would it (legally or not) be Namecheap's job to curate the content? What about the server the content is hosted on, its CDN, its DNS servers, its domain registry (not registrar), or so many other layers? If a website that incites violence can be taken down because of a single violence-inciting remark, then people will just post violent remarks on their enemies websites and proceed to get them taken down. As an administrator, whether of a domain, social network, forum, or services on other layers of the Internet, it's unreasonable to be held responsible for every single thing done by your users. That doesn't mean you have to let them do anything, but when a problem occurs, the first step should not be to start taking down websites and servers, instead of looking for a more reasonable solution.
  - soneil 9y ago
    At this point it's turned into a game of hot potato. No-one wants the bad press of being "the one who said yes". They need to find a registrar whose market position is built on taking a stance. Namecheap ain't it.

la6470 9y ago

>>>>>Given the amount of companies that have dropped the >>>>>>website, it's starting to set a pretty bad precedent. >>>>>There's plenty of equally bad content on very large >>>>>websites (Reddit, 4chan, etc), and if the standard for >>>>>this content becomes to wipe it from the face of the >>>>>Internet at all costs, things won't be pretty. It will be fine !!!

aestetix 9y ago

https://blog.namecheap.com/we-say-no-to-sopa/ https://blog.namecheap.com/we-say-no-to-sopa/ "At Namecheap, we believe having a free and open Internet is the only option that will continue the legacy of innovation and openess that stands for everything we all value in our modern society." --Namecheap CEO Richard Kendall, 2011 I'm curious what changed.

Daishiman 9y ago
Content that incites hatred is not free speech.
- vageli 9y ago
  How do you "incite hatred"? Inciting violence I can understand, but I'm curious what you meant by your statement. I feel hatred can be instilled, but not sure how it can be incited.
- jopython 9y ago
  The US Supreme court has overruled that before.
  - Daishiman 9y ago
    The US Supreme court is not the end-all-be-all of legal systems. Most European systems do consider that hate speech can be proscribed, as do most Latin American jurisdictions.
    - gspetr 9y ago
      Europe still has Lèse-majesté laws in the 21st century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A8se-majest%C3%A9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A8se-majest%C3%A9 Not to mention the Holocaust denial laws. But you can deny Armenian genocide just fine. Convenient, eh? "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." -- Voltaire.
- JCzynski 9y ago

stordoff 9y ago

> If you're going to have a policy of what is and what is not allowed, the reason why it will be so difficult is because you need to enforce the policy on every website equally. You cannot cherry-pick one website, cite the policy, and then forget that it exists. Is perfect enforcement necessary? Of course you need to be _consistent_, but only acting when the content becomes known to you doesn't seem wholely unworkable. That said, I much prefer it if registrars remained neutral on content (with the possible exception of the domain itself being the problem - consider, e.g., assassinateUSPrez2018[.]com). e: typo fix "prefer registrars remain" -> "prefer it if registrars remained"

ve55 9y ago
Perfect enforcement is ideal, but definitely impossible, especially based on arbitrary policy statements like 'incites violence'. In practice they will act when content becomes known to them, but a problem with this is that it will lead to them taking down content when the Internet mobs demand it (as they will spam support tickets, emails, twitter accounts, and so on, demanding the offending website be taken down), instead of focusing on the real problems. Just like people love getting their political enemies fired from work, now they will start to realize maybe they can do even better, and can get them wiped off of the Internet as well. Every time an attack like this is made, it will further radicalize the other side, giving them further resolve to attack back and with more strength. I just can't see this ending with anything good.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> But, I wonder: how many domains has Namecheap revoked in the name of this ideal? If you're going to have a policy of what is and what is not allowed, the reason why it will be so difficult is because you need to enforce the policy on every website equally. You cannot cherry-pick one website, cite the policy, and then forget that it exists. You absolutely can do complaint-based rather than pro-active enforcement, and prioritize enforcement based on the volume and nature of the complaints.