4 ms·

> Does the "alt-right" have specific reasons to harass Google I can think of one, aside from the Damore fiasco. Last year, Google, as a domain name registrar,

> Does the "alt-right" have specific reasons to harass Google I can think of one, aside from the Damore fiasco. Last year, Google, as a domain name registrar, took an inherently political position in clientHolding a fascist website's domain name - and doing no such thing to any of its overtly communist customers. Prior to the Godaddy/Google decisions, domains were generally only subject to action of this kind in the case of FBI/DHS/ICE seizures or egregious network abuse (spam, botnet c2, etc). This action set the precedent, for the first time, that denying access to your own domain names (clientHold prevents you from even transferring your domain to another registrar) on the basis of political disagreement is a perfectly acceptable action on the part of one of the largest infrastructure providers on the planet.

maxxxxx 9y ago
This is really unacceptable. It would be better for everybody if companies stayed neutral and would let law enforcement deal with abuses. What stops them from putting a clientHold on a domain not for political but commerical reasons. We really don't want companies to act as cops.
- 52-6F-62 9y ago
  Is it really better that way? Have you read through some of the business practices during WWII? Americans almost directly funding the German war effort by moving money around for their own capitalist benefit. I think the subject requires are more in-depth analysis than "companies shouldn't get to say who's business they want".
  - slededit 9y ago
    For the beginning years of the war the US was technically neutral. It would have been seen as an act of war for the government to stop its citizens from trading with the Germans.
    - 52-6F-62 9y ago
      We weren't talking about the government, though. We were talking about a company deciding to act with less ambiguity toward certain political groups/forces— like the example with Google above. For example, it might have been considered better taste after the issuance of the Nuremberg Laws for Coca Cola not to associate so closely with the German Reich and fly their banners next to the swastika at the Berlin games, but that certainly was not the play until they were forced to stop (which ultimately resulted in the invention of Fanta, but I digress). --- An additional sampling of a company just being apolitical in questionable taste. >> Mark Prendergrast "In March of 1938, as Hitler's troops stormed across the Austrian border in the Anschluss, Max Keith convened the ninth annual concessionaire convention, with 1,500 people in attendance. Behind the main table, a huge banner proclaimed in German, "Coca -Cola is the world-famous trademark for the unique product of Coca-Cola GmbH" Directly below, three gigantic swastikas stood out, black on red. At the main table, Max Keith sat surrounded by his deputies, another swastika draped in front of him...The meeting closed with a "ceremonial pledge to Coca-Cola and a ringing three-fold "Seig Heil" to Hitler." At another convention Mark Prendergrast notes "Then Keith ordered a mass Sieg-Heil for Hitler's recent fiftieth birthday, to commemorate our deepest admiration and gratitude for our Fuhrer who has led our nation into a brilliant higher sphere."... At the Reich "Schaffendes Volk" ("Working People") Exhibition celebrating the German worker under Hitler, Prendergrast describes "A functioning bottling plant, with a miniature train carting Kinder beneath, bottled Coca-Cola at the very centre of the fair, adjacent to the Propaganda Office. Touring the Dusseldorf fair, Hermann Goering paused for a Coke, and an alert Company photographer snapped a picture. Though no such picture documented the Fuhrer's tastes, Hitler reputedly enjoyed Coca Cola too, sipping the Atlanta drink as he watched Gone With The Wind in his private theatre." https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/203586.For_God_Country_Coca_Cola https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/203586.For_God_Country_C...
      - slededit 9y ago
        The dirty truth is that a lot of Americans sympathized with Hitler at the beginning of the war. This was a major reason for the US's initial neutrality. The universal hatred of Nazism came only after the war concluded. Further a lot of major American companies were hedging their bets in case the US remained neutral - in which case Germany would have been a major power. The situation is similar to Apple and Google appeasing Chinese censorship today (albeit without the death camps).
  - maxxxxx 9y ago
    I view things like domain registration as infrastructure. I want companies to stay neutral in these things. If something illegal is going on law enforcement needs to get involved. I don't want companies to block people from important infrastructure. For example we also don't want a utility to turn off electricity for Nazis.
    - 52-6F-62 9y ago
      Granted, but I think the domain registration would be debatable. Having a domain held wouldn't prevent them from issuing a newsletter or press release or visit affiliated forums and passing off an IP address. I imagine there are all kinds of pretty nasty domain names that wouldn't be appropriate to rent out.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ot 9y ago
That's quite a false equivalency. Fascism is an ideology that at its core has oppression of free speech and political opponents, white supremacy, authoritarianism, colonialism. Communism as a political theory has none of these things. You're confusing it with authoritarian socialism (Soviet Russia, Mao's China, ...).
- geofft 9y ago
  A simpler rebuttal is that the Daily Stormer is opposed to ISIS, and I would in fact expect Google to be taking down ISIS websites celebrating specific acts of terrorism (as the Daily Stormer did). Both sides!
  - joshuamorton 9y ago
    Are any isis websites hosted on Google? Like, there's a whole anti- terrorism thing at Google dealing with Isis videos posted on YouTube. It's a bit more comples than just " remove them", but it's research backed and in concert with governments. (Or did misread "I'd expect google to" and we agree)
    - geofft 9y ago
      Yes, I meant "My assumption is that Google is doing so," not "I would have expected Google to do this thing and they're not," sorry.
      - joshuamorton 9y ago
        No, no, my fault :)
- megaman22 9y ago
  That's kind of a No True Scotsman argument... I would actually be interested to have an example of a communist regime pointed out that didn't have mass graves in their back yard somewhere; I just can't think of one.

maxxxxx 9y ago

This is really unacceptable. It would be better for everybody if companies stayed neutral and would let law enforcement deal with abuses. What stops them from putting a clientHold on a domain not for political but commerical reasons. We really don't want companies to act as cops.

52-6F-62 9y ago
Is it really better that way? Have you read through some of the business practices during WWII? Americans almost directly funding the German war effort by moving money around for their own capitalist benefit. I think the subject requires are more in-depth analysis than "companies shouldn't get to say who's business they want".
- slededit 9y ago
  For the beginning years of the war the US was technically neutral. It would have been seen as an act of war for the government to stop its citizens from trading with the Germans.
  - 52-6F-62 9y ago
    We weren't talking about the government, though. We were talking about a company deciding to act with less ambiguity toward certain political groups/forces— like the example with Google above. For example, it might have been considered better taste after the issuance of the Nuremberg Laws for Coca Cola not to associate so closely with the German Reich and fly their banners next to the swastika at the Berlin games, but that certainly was not the play until they were forced to stop (which ultimately resulted in the invention of Fanta, but I digress). --- An additional sampling of a company just being apolitical in questionable taste. >> Mark Prendergrast "In March of 1938, as Hitler's troops stormed across the Austrian border in the Anschluss, Max Keith convened the ninth annual concessionaire convention, with 1,500 people in attendance. Behind the main table, a huge banner proclaimed in German, "Coca -Cola is the world-famous trademark for the unique product of Coca-Cola GmbH" Directly below, three gigantic swastikas stood out, black on red. At the main table, Max Keith sat surrounded by his deputies, another swastika draped in front of him...The meeting closed with a "ceremonial pledge to Coca-Cola and a ringing three-fold "Seig Heil" to Hitler." At another convention Mark Prendergrast notes "Then Keith ordered a mass Sieg-Heil for Hitler's recent fiftieth birthday, to commemorate our deepest admiration and gratitude for our Fuhrer who has led our nation into a brilliant higher sphere."... At the Reich "Schaffendes Volk" ("Working People") Exhibition celebrating the German worker under Hitler, Prendergrast describes "A functioning bottling plant, with a miniature train carting Kinder beneath, bottled Coca-Cola at the very centre of the fair, adjacent to the Propaganda Office. Touring the Dusseldorf fair, Hermann Goering paused for a Coke, and an alert Company photographer snapped a picture. Though no such picture documented the Fuhrer's tastes, Hitler reputedly enjoyed Coca Cola too, sipping the Atlanta drink as he watched Gone With The Wind in his private theatre." https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/203586.For_God_Country_Coca_Cola https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/203586.For_God_Country_C...
    - slededit 9y ago
      The dirty truth is that a lot of Americans sympathized with Hitler at the beginning of the war. This was a major reason for the US's initial neutrality. The universal hatred of Nazism came only after the war concluded. Further a lot of major American companies were hedging their bets in case the US remained neutral - in which case Germany would have been a major power. The situation is similar to Apple and Google appeasing Chinese censorship today (albeit without the death camps).
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  I view things like domain registration as infrastructure. I want companies to stay neutral in these things. If something illegal is going on law enforcement needs to get involved. I don't want companies to block people from important infrastructure. For example we also don't want a utility to turn off electricity for Nazis.
  - 52-6F-62 9y ago
    Granted, but I think the domain registration would be debatable. Having a domain held wouldn't prevent them from issuing a newsletter or press release or visit affiliated forums and passing off an IP address. I imagine there are all kinds of pretty nasty domain names that wouldn't be appropriate to rent out.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

ot 9y ago

That's quite a false equivalency. Fascism is an ideology that at its core has oppression of free speech and political opponents, white supremacy, authoritarianism, colonialism. Communism as a political theory has none of these things. You're confusing it with authoritarian socialism (Soviet Russia, Mao's China, ...).

geofft 9y ago
A simpler rebuttal is that the Daily Stormer is opposed to ISIS, and I would in fact expect Google to be taking down ISIS websites celebrating specific acts of terrorism (as the Daily Stormer did). Both sides!
- joshuamorton 9y ago
  Are any isis websites hosted on Google? Like, there's a whole anti- terrorism thing at Google dealing with Isis videos posted on YouTube. It's a bit more comples than just " remove them", but it's research backed and in concert with governments. (Or did misread "I'd expect google to" and we agree)
  - geofft 9y ago
    Yes, I meant "My assumption is that Google is doing so," not "I would have expected Google to do this thing and they're not," sorry.
    - joshuamorton 9y ago
      No, no, my fault :)
megaman22 9y ago
That's kind of a No True Scotsman argument... I would actually be interested to have an example of a communist regime pointed out that didn't have mass graves in their back yard somewhere; I just can't think of one.