3 ms·

That is ridiculous. We really have to address the bias/extremism in the tech hierarchy and their shortsighted foolishness. Gab did nothing illegal. All this doe

That is ridiculous. We really have to address the bias/extremism in the tech hierarchy and their shortsighted foolishness. Gab did nothing illegal. All this does is opens up godaddy to pressure to start suspending other "offensive" domains. These groups of large tech companies are acting as puritans and social engineers in concert are worrying. The same companies complaining about other countries forcing them to censor and going above and beyond censoring at home. Edit: 10 years ago, nobody with any sense would have supported this. People valued free speech. The anti-free speech brigading is rather shocking, especially on a site like hacker news.

anonymous5133 8y ago
I agree, it is a slippery slope for the domain hosters. Hopefully they will just shift into tor where censorship does not exist.
- alphabettsy 8y ago
  The slippery slope is a logical fallacy. Is there evidence this extends beyond this specific case or hate speech in general?
tdb7893 8y ago
The thing is that "nothing illegal" is too low a bar. From a purely ethical standpoint taking money from a platform that supports hate speech is pretty sketchy even if it's not illegal
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
fma 8y ago
I actually agreed with you, except with the edit. GoDaddy did nothing illegal, either. GoDaddy is executing their free speech. Per Citizens United (pushed by the right, of course) "The United States Supreme Court held (5–4) on January 21, 2010, that the free speech clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for communications by nonprofit corporations, for-profit corporations, labor unions, and other associations". We should just admit that businesses censor one way or another - whether suppressing speech (removal of tweets), or extreme bias in information dissemination (looking at you, Fox News).
- rabbitonrails 8y ago
  (looking at you, NYT)
doodliego 8y ago
"We reserve the right to refuse service to anybody." GoDaddy exercised that right. They are not obligated to provide service to anybody.
asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
> All this does is opens up godaddy to pressure to start suspending other "offensive" domains. To those of us who want to see bad websites go away, this doesn't sound like a terrible thing. > 10 years ago, nobody with any sense would have supported this. Ten years ago, antisemites were a lot quieter.

anonymous5133 8y ago

I agree, it is a slippery slope for the domain hosters. Hopefully they will just shift into tor where censorship does not exist.

alphabettsy 8y ago
The slippery slope is a logical fallacy. Is there evidence this extends beyond this specific case or hate speech in general?

tdb7893 8y ago

The thing is that "nothing illegal" is too low a bar. From a purely ethical standpoint taking money from a platform that supports hate speech is pretty sketchy even if it's not illegal

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

fma 8y ago

I actually agreed with you, except with the edit. GoDaddy did nothing illegal, either. GoDaddy is executing their free speech. Per Citizens United (pushed by the right, of course) "The United States Supreme Court held (5–4) on January 21, 2010, that the free speech clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for communications by nonprofit corporations, for-profit corporations, labor unions, and other associations". We should just admit that businesses censor one way or another - whether suppressing speech (removal of tweets), or extreme bias in information dissemination (looking at you, Fox News).

rabbitonrails 8y ago
(looking at you, NYT)

doodliego 8y ago

"We reserve the right to refuse service to anybody." GoDaddy exercised that right. They are not obligated to provide service to anybody.

asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago

> All this does is opens up godaddy to pressure to start suspending other "offensive" domains. To those of us who want to see bad websites go away, this doesn't sound like a terrible thing. > 10 years ago, nobody with any sense would have supported this. Ten years ago, antisemites were a lot quieter.