4 ms·
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
by 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 agoThank you for that explanation. I was confused by the wording of the article.