4 ms·

> and shouldn't (in my opinion) be a matter for Google to decide ... why in hell not? Google is not a government-supplied service. They're a private company. H

by vacri 9y ago

> and shouldn't (in my opinion) be a matter for Google to decide ... why in hell not? Google is not a government-supplied service. They're a private company. How can you be for blanket freedom of speech, yet restrict a private party from expressing themselves? Google already curates your experience for you - see the 'google bubble'. How come blanket-freedom-of-speech advocates don't complain about that? It's not like Google's decisions jail anyone or impound cars or similar. For that matter, why don't blanket-freedom-of-speech advocates complain about Apple's 'walled garden'? > that's a matter for the courts That's a terrible way to go for social justice as a first port-of-call. The courts are not particularly available for poor or uneducated people. And in the US, public defenders have to be extremely careful about not touching political cases or they can lose their funding. The courts are overloaded, slow, expensive, time-consuming, confusing, and often enough don't 'get it right'.

KGIII 9y ago
They deprived them of property without due process. I'm not okay with that. Justice, social or not, is a matter for the courts. Otherwise, it's known as vigilante justice. Freedom of expression is more than just a matter of meeting the barest legal requirements. It's an ideal, to be aspired to and inspired by. Google didn't just curate content they linked or hosted, they took a domain name away without due process. It's obvious that you're okay with that. I'm not.
- vacri 9y ago
  What's the 'due process' for cancelling a domain registration?
  - KGIII 9y ago
    None. That's the problem.
    - vacri 9y ago
      Let's wrap some context around the situation here. Party X is an organisation that proudly boasts about its hatefulness, misery-spreading activities, and sticking its finger in the eye of 'the establishment'. They approach one of the biggest members of 'the establishment', corporation Y, for services. For the first half of corporation Y's existence, they famously ran under the slogan "don't be evil". Party X then willingly signs on to a business relationship with corp Y, who has terms of service that have an entire line item stating that they can reject applications at corp Y's sole discretion. Right here, this is your due process. Corp Y then exercises their rights as per the ToS - they didn't lean on anyone (which is what this thread was originally about), they were exercising the rights granted to them by the business contract. Party X agreed to these terms. Party X is at fault here for not doing their due diligence with their business partners - something they really should have paid attention to, given their situation at the time. Regarding the 60 days, this is not corp Y applying extrajudicial punishment. It's a matter of 'falling between the cracks'. ICANN rules set this 60 days[1], not corp Y, and this 60-day limitation info is also available in the ToS. Google offered a service with terms, Stormer accepted it, Google exercised their rights as per the terms, and the 60 days is an accidental by-product of interaction with the overseeing body's rules, not a 'fuck you' from Google. A marker of a chilling dystopian future, this domain cancellation ain't. [1] https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/text-2012-02-25-en https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/text-2012-02-25-en
      - KGIII 9y ago
        I've pondered replying to this, for about eight hours. I don't actually have anything nice to say - if I let myself be brutally honest. I'm not sure you understand what freedom of expression really is. I'm not sure that you value it like I do. I'm not sure if you have the same views of the right of the individual as I do. That's okay. I accept your views. I think you're fundamentally wrong, as I've demonstrated in this sub-thread. To put this in perspective, I still respect you - even though we fundamentally disagree. That's the root of freedom of expression. You'll note that I don't tend to refer to it as Freedom of Speech, or the First Amendment. I speak of it as a social goal. I speak of it as something to aspire towards. If you're curious, the EFF and ACLU both agree with me. I need to be very, very clear. I don't like Nazis. I like the freedom to express myself, and any infringement on that is an infringement on my future liberties. Some things, such as credible threats of violence, are worth suppressing or penalizing. Others? Not so much. Sort of related, I am sorry that your comments have been moderated so poorly. I had nothing to do with it and, though I don't agree with you, I respect you, as a human, enough to pay attention to what you've said and to respond in kind. Without the liberty to express ourselves, most other enumerated rights lose value. In all but the rarest of cases, I will support the ideal of liberty. If you want to disagree further, this is not the place for it. I'm freely available at uninvolved@outlook.com - or we can pick a site of your choosing and keep it public.

by vacri 9y ago

KGIII 9y ago

They deprived them of property without due process. I'm not okay with that. Justice, social or not, is a matter for the courts. Otherwise, it's known as vigilante justice. Freedom of expression is more than just a matter of meeting the barest legal requirements. It's an ideal, to be aspired to and inspired by. Google didn't just curate content they linked or hosted, they took a domain name away without due process. It's obvious that you're okay with that. I'm not.

vacri 9y ago
What's the 'due process' for cancelling a domain registration?
- KGIII 9y ago
  None. That's the problem.
  - vacri 9y ago
    Let's wrap some context around the situation here. Party X is an organisation that proudly boasts about its hatefulness, misery-spreading activities, and sticking its finger in the eye of 'the establishment'. They approach one of the biggest members of 'the establishment', corporation Y, for services. For the first half of corporation Y's existence, they famously ran under the slogan "don't be evil". Party X then willingly signs on to a business relationship with corp Y, who has terms of service that have an entire line item stating that they can reject applications at corp Y's sole discretion. Right here, this is your due process. Corp Y then exercises their rights as per the ToS - they didn't lean on anyone (which is what this thread was originally about), they were exercising the rights granted to them by the business contract. Party X agreed to these terms. Party X is at fault here for not doing their due diligence with their business partners - something they really should have paid attention to, given their situation at the time. Regarding the 60 days, this is not corp Y applying extrajudicial punishment. It's a matter of 'falling between the cracks'. ICANN rules set this 60 days[1], not corp Y, and this 60-day limitation info is also available in the ToS. Google offered a service with terms, Stormer accepted it, Google exercised their rights as per the terms, and the 60 days is an accidental by-product of interaction with the overseeing body's rules, not a 'fuck you' from Google. A marker of a chilling dystopian future, this domain cancellation ain't. [1] https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/text-2012-02-25-en https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/text-2012-02-25-en
    - KGIII 9y ago
      I've pondered replying to this, for about eight hours. I don't actually have anything nice to say - if I let myself be brutally honest. I'm not sure you understand what freedom of expression really is. I'm not sure that you value it like I do. I'm not sure if you have the same views of the right of the individual as I do. That's okay. I accept your views. I think you're fundamentally wrong, as I've demonstrated in this sub-thread. To put this in perspective, I still respect you - even though we fundamentally disagree. That's the root of freedom of expression. You'll note that I don't tend to refer to it as Freedom of Speech, or the First Amendment. I speak of it as a social goal. I speak of it as something to aspire towards. If you're curious, the EFF and ACLU both agree with me. I need to be very, very clear. I don't like Nazis. I like the freedom to express myself, and any infringement on that is an infringement on my future liberties. Some things, such as credible threats of violence, are worth suppressing or penalizing. Others? Not so much. Sort of related, I am sorry that your comments have been moderated so poorly. I had nothing to do with it and, though I don't agree with you, I respect you, as a human, enough to pay attention to what you've said and to respond in kind. Without the liberty to express ourselves, most other enumerated rights lose value. In all but the rarest of cases, I will support the ideal of liberty. If you want to disagree further, this is not the place for it. I'm freely available at uninvolved@outlook.com - or we can pick a site of your choosing and keep it public.