5 ms·

In an earlier post (https://www.easydns.com/blog/2017/09/06/why-does-easydns-provide-services-to-martian-separatists/ https://www.easydns.com/blog/2017/09/06/wh

In an earlier post (https://www.easydns.com/blog/2017/09/06/why-does-easydns-provide-services-to-martian-separatists/ https://www.easydns.com/blog/2017/09/06/why-does-easydns-pro...) supporting free expression, EasyDNS says that they will only refuse service to sites that advocate or encourage "physical violence or harm toward an identifiable minority." I have never been to the DailyStormer site, so I don't know if they meet that criteria. If they don't, EasyDNS, while well within their rights, is not living up to their own standards.

ainiriand 9y ago
Random page: https://web.archive.org/web/20170516210944/https://www.dailystormer.com/happening-berkeley-street-war-is-going-down-without-ann-yes/ https://web.archive.org/web/20170516210944/https://www.daily... Asking people to be beaten up.
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  Could you quote it? I see it remarking on people he expects to be beaten up, fantasising about people being beaten up (it seems, from two opposing factions at least), anticipating people begin beaten up with relish. But I didn't see any asking for people to be beaten up. Standing back and hooting as someone else commits violent assault ain't right [understatement!], but it's far from calling those people to commit the assault. It doesn't read as incitement to me, 'just' applauding anticipated violence, deplorable as that is. I'm really not sure text on a website should count as incitement any way (maybe if it's UGC with specific threats against particular people); but is that there even?
- regularhackerer 9y ago
  I don't want to read whatever that is too closely but looks like some random blog post where some idiot claims 'antifa' or 'right wing protestors' located at some rally 'deserve to be beaten up'. You may find there are other blogging platforms out there with actual requests for violence, often justified with a tagline 'Punch a nazi!'.
  - tyleraldrich 9y ago
    The OP asked if the daily stormer hosted content calling for physical violence and evidence was given. I'm sure plenty of other blogging platforms call for physical violence, whats the point? Are they EasyDNS customers? If they are, you should probably let EasyDNS know. If not, your comment is entirely worthless.
- jgmmo 9y ago
  I read this whole thing, unfortunately, to try and find the 'immiment threat of harm' and found none. This article is not a good example of what you claim I see no reason this should be seen as a threat of imminent violence. Simply saying 'so-and-so should get punched' is not, to me, a credible, real threat. Just some troll mouthing off. Edit: that's like saying all the people who say on Twitter 'trump needs a punch to the face' are committing hate speech?
abritinthebay 9y ago
It absolutely does meet those criteria and then some. They aren’t called Nazi’s because people disagree with them but because they are actual Nazis
- na85 9y ago
  Wouldn't "actual Nazis" be members of the German National Socialist Party? Pedantic, perhaps, but I think the proper term for these people is "racists" or "white supremacists" (edit: or even better, Neonazis) . I find the term "Nazi" to be overused in the modern discourse, often hyperbolic in nature, usually to refer to people who lean right of political centre. Not sure why down voters appear to disagree : I prefer to call a spade a spade.
  - bhaak 9y ago
    Yes, you are right. Only those people that were actual members of the party were called "Nazis". Today in German, those that are still living are sometimes called "Altnazi", old nazi, to distinguish the racist people that follow their ideology but can't possibly have been alive at that time. The latter are more precisely called "Neonazi", but that is often shortened to just "Nazi".
    - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
      Perhaps the parent is confused as I am: Do these Nazis want "German Socialism" to take over in USA, so be ruled from Germany? If not then I think calling them Nazis definitely needs clarification. Genuine confusion for me. Nazi to me is someone who wants to resurrect Hitler and be ruled by the Fatherland; that seems incongruent with what I expect from USA white supremacist??
      - bhaak 9y ago
        "Nazi" derives from the word "National Socialism", it's not inherently German in that regard, they just invented it. The ideology isn't tied to one nation. You can read about nazism in the US here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazism#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazism#United_States
tomp 9y ago
Wow, the hypocrisy is hillarious.
elevensies 9y ago
It is kind of a slippery standard (I think it is reasonable, just hard to draw a precise line in the sand.) I.e somewhere along the continuum of down-with-fascists-and-that-sort-of-thing .com ban-all-fascists-from-rhode-island .com fascists-deserved-to-be-punched .com lets-attack-all-fascists-in-rhode-island .com list-of-rhode-island-fascists-to-attack-tonight .com As it escalates in intent of violence and specificity, it becomes more of an issue for any service provider. And you can imagine imagine replacing "fascists" with different groups might get a stronger response earlier, i.e. "animal hurting medical researchers", "illegal aliens", "zionists", "catholics", and so on. But by the time you get to advocating specific illegal actions against specific people, I think you're pretty certain to get cut off. I don't know if this is true for the daily stormer, but I think generally troll-right groups are going to keep getting cut off because they are doing targeted online harassment. When there are specific victims and things are clearly being coordinated on a certain site that gives service providers a strong motive to cut them off. Versus if someone is publishing some kind of racist newsletter that is only being seen by other racists no one is really going to know enough about that has a motive to cut them off.
djrogers 9y ago
> they will only refuse service to sites that advocate or encourage "physical violence or harm toward an identifiable minority." So a blog about beating up white christian males for being WCM is fair game? Good news...

ainiriand 9y ago

Random page: https://web.archive.org/web/20170516210944/https://www.dailystormer.com/happening-berkeley-street-war-is-going-down-without-ann-yes/ https://web.archive.org/web/20170516210944/https://www.daily... Asking people to be beaten up.

pbhjpbhj 9y ago
Could you quote it? I see it remarking on people he expects to be beaten up, fantasising about people being beaten up (it seems, from two opposing factions at least), anticipating people begin beaten up with relish. But I didn't see any asking for people to be beaten up. Standing back and hooting as someone else commits violent assault ain't right [understatement!], but it's far from calling those people to commit the assault. It doesn't read as incitement to me, 'just' applauding anticipated violence, deplorable as that is. I'm really not sure text on a website should count as incitement any way (maybe if it's UGC with specific threats against particular people); but is that there even?
regularhackerer 9y ago
I don't want to read whatever that is too closely but looks like some random blog post where some idiot claims 'antifa' or 'right wing protestors' located at some rally 'deserve to be beaten up'. You may find there are other blogging platforms out there with actual requests for violence, often justified with a tagline 'Punch a nazi!'.
- tyleraldrich 9y ago
  The OP asked if the daily stormer hosted content calling for physical violence and evidence was given. I'm sure plenty of other blogging platforms call for physical violence, whats the point? Are they EasyDNS customers? If they are, you should probably let EasyDNS know. If not, your comment is entirely worthless.
jgmmo 9y ago
I read this whole thing, unfortunately, to try and find the 'immiment threat of harm' and found none. This article is not a good example of what you claim I see no reason this should be seen as a threat of imminent violence. Simply saying 'so-and-so should get punched' is not, to me, a credible, real threat. Just some troll mouthing off. Edit: that's like saying all the people who say on Twitter 'trump needs a punch to the face' are committing hate speech?

abritinthebay 9y ago

It absolutely does meet those criteria and then some. They aren’t called Nazi’s because people disagree with them but because they are actual Nazis

na85 9y ago
Wouldn't "actual Nazis" be members of the German National Socialist Party? Pedantic, perhaps, but I think the proper term for these people is "racists" or "white supremacists" (edit: or even better, Neonazis) . I find the term "Nazi" to be overused in the modern discourse, often hyperbolic in nature, usually to refer to people who lean right of political centre. Not sure why down voters appear to disagree : I prefer to call a spade a spade.
- bhaak 9y ago
  Yes, you are right. Only those people that were actual members of the party were called "Nazis". Today in German, those that are still living are sometimes called "Altnazi", old nazi, to distinguish the racist people that follow their ideology but can't possibly have been alive at that time. The latter are more precisely called "Neonazi", but that is often shortened to just "Nazi".
  - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    Perhaps the parent is confused as I am: Do these Nazis want "German Socialism" to take over in USA, so be ruled from Germany? If not then I think calling them Nazis definitely needs clarification. Genuine confusion for me. Nazi to me is someone who wants to resurrect Hitler and be ruled by the Fatherland; that seems incongruent with what I expect from USA white supremacist??
    - bhaak 9y ago
      "Nazi" derives from the word "National Socialism", it's not inherently German in that regard, they just invented it. The ideology isn't tied to one nation. You can read about nazism in the US here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazism#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazism#United_States

tomp 9y ago

Wow, the hypocrisy is hillarious.

elevensies 9y ago

It is kind of a slippery standard (I think it is reasonable, just hard to draw a precise line in the sand.) I.e somewhere along the continuum of down-with-fascists-and-that-sort-of-thing .com ban-all-fascists-from-rhode-island .com fascists-deserved-to-be-punched .com lets-attack-all-fascists-in-rhode-island .com list-of-rhode-island-fascists-to-attack-tonight .com As it escalates in intent of violence and specificity, it becomes more of an issue for any service provider. And you can imagine imagine replacing "fascists" with different groups might get a stronger response earlier, i.e. "animal hurting medical researchers", "illegal aliens", "zionists", "catholics", and so on. But by the time you get to advocating specific illegal actions against specific people, I think you're pretty certain to get cut off. I don't know if this is true for the daily stormer, but I think generally troll-right groups are going to keep getting cut off because they are doing targeted online harassment. When there are specific victims and things are clearly being coordinated on a certain site that gives service providers a strong motive to cut them off. Versus if someone is publishing some kind of racist newsletter that is only being seen by other racists no one is really going to know enough about that has a motive to cut them off.

djrogers 9y ago

> they will only refuse service to sites that advocate or encourage "physical violence or harm toward an identifiable minority." So a blog about beating up white christian males for being WCM is fair game? Good news...