3 ms·

White supremacist forum site Stormfront seized by domain hosts

11 points by fooey 9y ago

CM30 9y ago
This is interesting, if only because the domain registrar hasn't dropped the domain or site, but outright disabled it so the site owners can't access it. Wonder what kind of legal threat they could have received that caused the domain registrar to do that?
- Melchizedek 9y ago
  I think it's obvious that we are seeing an organized campaign against white nationalists and the alt-right, and even against some ordinary nationalists and conservatives. From YouTube, to Paypal, to Patreon, to GoDaddy, to Cloudflare, to Google, to Airbnb, to Discord, to Twitter, etc, etc. It's too much and too quick not to be at least partly organized by some group(s) or entity.
Powerofmene 9y ago
This is scary more than interesting in my opinion. First let me say, I am not addressing this issue in the context of free speech. That issue has been rehashed on HN over and over. Instead, I am questioning these actions from the context of the power that Network Solutions is exercising in taking down and essentially seizing a website. Short of having a court order, which is not made clear, I am stunned that this is able to take place. >The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law has claimed responsibility for the site's removal. Executive Director Kristen Clarke said in an email that the nonprofit group has "taken action against Stormfront." A nonprofit has "taken action against Stormfront." What kind of action has it taken that allows it to have a site in essence seized and taken down? This should be a concern to an business that has an internet presence that may have a difference of opinion with any other person/organization. While I do not agree with Stormfront or their rhetoric, I also do not agree with seizing a website from its owner without some type of legal action or court order to do so. More needs to be said on what happened here or we should all be concerned about these actions.
- ryanlol 9y ago
  >A nonprofit has "taken action against Stormfront." What kind of action has it taken that allows it to have a site in essence seized and taken down? Sending a bunch of abuse emails tends to work. >This should be a concern to an business that has an internet presence that may have a difference of opinion with any other person/organization. While I do not agree with Stormfront or their rhetoric, I also do not agree with seizing a website from its owner without some type of legal action or court order to do so. More needs to be said on what happened here or we should all be concerned about these actions. This happens 1000s of times every day, but people only seem to be worried when it's Nazi sites that get taken down. Nobody gets worried when domain registrars shut down 1000s of "malware" and "phishing" domains every day with little to no verification based on abuse reports from automated scripts
  - Powerofmene 9y ago
    As I said, this has nothing to do with whose site was removed nor am I addressing the concept of free speech, I was only asking about the ability to take down a website and someone such as Netwoek Solutions to seize it and refuse to release it to be moved to another host. I am not speaking specifically about Stormfront as I don't know anything about them beyond what the article posits. I was saying we should be concerned when a site can be taken down and the domain seized without further information. You state that it happens 1,000 times a day. You certainly know more than me on this, but in these cases is the domain frozen or seized? It just seems there was more to the story than was told.
    - ryanlol 9y ago
      >You state that it happens 1,000 times a day. You certainly know more than me on this, but in these cases is the domain frozen or seized? It just seems there was more to the story than was told. Okay so, this article was written by monkeys. Author interprets "clientTransferProhibited" and a bunch of other irrelevant flags as the domain being seized, which isn't at all what these mean. The only domain status flag relevant here is the "clientHold". This domain wasn't "seized", it's a normal clientHold. Stormfront can still transfer to another registrar, but on some registrars that can be a little tricky. For a domain seizure generally you'd expect to see "serverHold", whois lizardsquad.org for example.
rdiddly 9y ago
Ultimately what he says remains true: private companies aren't compelled to let somebody use their services. This makes it all the more important, in my opinion, not necessarily to keep trying to reform or care about how private companies handle various things, but rather for public institutions (those under public control, roughly speaking), to continue to provide a public, non-internet way to engage with those institutions. For example, a lot of local governments now, you get the sense they won't pay attention to you unless you go (or threaten to go) on Twitter. So at that point having a Twitter account is a prerequisite for democracy a little bit. I mean Twitter's fine and all, but what if you run afoul of their terms of service somehow, or what if they simply invoke their right to refuse service to anyone? Neither of those has anything to do with your rights as a citizen, and shouldn't affect them.

11 points by fooey 9y ago

CM30 9y ago

This is interesting, if only because the domain registrar hasn't dropped the domain or site, but outright disabled it so the site owners can't access it. Wonder what kind of legal threat they could have received that caused the domain registrar to do that?

Melchizedek 9y ago
I think it's obvious that we are seeing an organized campaign against white nationalists and the alt-right, and even against some ordinary nationalists and conservatives. From YouTube, to Paypal, to Patreon, to GoDaddy, to Cloudflare, to Google, to Airbnb, to Discord, to Twitter, etc, etc. It's too much and too quick not to be at least partly organized by some group(s) or entity.

Powerofmene 9y ago

This is scary more than interesting in my opinion. First let me say, I am not addressing this issue in the context of free speech. That issue has been rehashed on HN over and over. Instead, I am questioning these actions from the context of the power that Network Solutions is exercising in taking down and essentially seizing a website. Short of having a court order, which is not made clear, I am stunned that this is able to take place. >The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law has claimed responsibility for the site's removal. Executive Director Kristen Clarke said in an email that the nonprofit group has "taken action against Stormfront." A nonprofit has "taken action against Stormfront." What kind of action has it taken that allows it to have a site in essence seized and taken down? This should be a concern to an business that has an internet presence that may have a difference of opinion with any other person/organization. While I do not agree with Stormfront or their rhetoric, I also do not agree with seizing a website from its owner without some type of legal action or court order to do so. More needs to be said on what happened here or we should all be concerned about these actions.

ryanlol 9y ago
>A nonprofit has "taken action against Stormfront." What kind of action has it taken that allows it to have a site in essence seized and taken down? Sending a bunch of abuse emails tends to work. >This should be a concern to an business that has an internet presence that may have a difference of opinion with any other person/organization. While I do not agree with Stormfront or their rhetoric, I also do not agree with seizing a website from its owner without some type of legal action or court order to do so. More needs to be said on what happened here or we should all be concerned about these actions. This happens 1000s of times every day, but people only seem to be worried when it's Nazi sites that get taken down. Nobody gets worried when domain registrars shut down 1000s of "malware" and "phishing" domains every day with little to no verification based on abuse reports from automated scripts
- Powerofmene 9y ago
  As I said, this has nothing to do with whose site was removed nor am I addressing the concept of free speech, I was only asking about the ability to take down a website and someone such as Netwoek Solutions to seize it and refuse to release it to be moved to another host. I am not speaking specifically about Stormfront as I don't know anything about them beyond what the article posits. I was saying we should be concerned when a site can be taken down and the domain seized without further information. You state that it happens 1,000 times a day. You certainly know more than me on this, but in these cases is the domain frozen or seized? It just seems there was more to the story than was told.
  - ryanlol 9y ago
    >You state that it happens 1,000 times a day. You certainly know more than me on this, but in these cases is the domain frozen or seized? It just seems there was more to the story than was told. Okay so, this article was written by monkeys. Author interprets "clientTransferProhibited" and a bunch of other irrelevant flags as the domain being seized, which isn't at all what these mean. The only domain status flag relevant here is the "clientHold". This domain wasn't "seized", it's a normal clientHold. Stormfront can still transfer to another registrar, but on some registrars that can be a little tricky. For a domain seizure generally you'd expect to see "serverHold", whois lizardsquad.org for example.

rdiddly 9y ago

Ultimately what he says remains true: private companies aren't compelled to let somebody use their services. This makes it all the more important, in my opinion, not necessarily to keep trying to reform or care about how private companies handle various things, but rather for public institutions (those under public control, roughly speaking), to continue to provide a public, non-internet way to engage with those institutions. For example, a lot of local governments now, you get the sense they won't pay attention to you unless you go (or threaten to go) on Twitter. So at that point having a Twitter account is a prerequisite for democracy a little bit. I mean Twitter's fine and all, but what if you run afoul of their terms of service somehow, or what if they simply invoke their right to refuse service to anyone? Neither of those has anything to do with your rights as a citizen, and shouldn't affect them.