3 ms·

>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

>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.
  - Powerofmene 9y ago
    Thank you for that explanation. I was confused by the wording of the article.

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.
- Powerofmene 9y ago
  Thank you for that explanation. I was confused by the wording of the article.