4 ms·

https://www.google.com/amp/s/techcrunch.com/2017/08/13/godaddy-tells-white-supremacist-site-daily-stormer-to-find-a-new-domain-provider/amp/ https://www.google.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/techcrunch.com/2017/08/13/godaddy-tells-white-supremacist-site-daily-stormer-to-find-a-new-domain-provider/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/techcrunch.com/2017/08/13/godad... Domain providers are beginning to police content they deem as unacceptable speech or ideas. Are you going to remember IP addresses when the DNS system itself polices thought? The problem is, tech companies are beginning to behave like a cartel when it comes to free expression. We don’t just see it in Facebook, we see it across all facets of the digital economy, from payment providers to hosting providers to DNS services themselves. If your solution for someone getting the scarlet letter is to say they are free to build their own network, then we are approaching a major problem.

freehunter 8y ago
The slope is not nearly as slippery as you're imagining it to be. I'm not sure literal white supremecists are the shining beacon upon which you want to hang your argument (if I'm wrong on this, you don't need to read any further). We're not talking about a controversial political opinion, we're not talking about coastal liberals shutting down good American conservative free speech, we're talking about white supremecists who refer to themselves as genocidal. People who want to murder (and have done so) non-white people just for the crime of having a different skin color. But beyond that absolutely ridiculous argument, yes. The Internet is free-as-in-freedom as long as you have an IP address. If you want to start your own competitor to the World Wide Web because a few private companies exercise their right to not to business with you, you can do that. The Web and the Internet work without domain names, and if you really need your message out there and your followers really need to hear it, is typing in an IP address too much work? If it is, then your message might not be as convincing as you think it is. But even still, you can host your own website or Internet service regardless. And you can start your own registrar and host your own servers and make your own payment processor. That is entirely possible and at that point only the government can stop you (and even then, you can choose your own government like The Pirate Bay did). If your movement is stopped by a lack of convenience, that's not Facebook's problem. Saying "but Facebook banned me" as if Facebook was the entire Internet or even the entire Web doesn't fly. Only you can give them that power, and you can take that power from them whenever you want to. Being banned from Twitter/Facebook/YouTube is only a problem if you honestly believe that Twitter/Facebook/YouTube owns the entire Internet. But they don't. You're free to start a competitor any time you want.
- manfredo 8y ago
  Do you have a source to back up your claim that Britain First have "referred to themselves as genocidal"? Extreme claims require extreme evidence, and I have not been able to find instances where they have referred to themselves as such. You're making a very significant claim when you say that Britian First has described themselves as genocidal (as opposed to being described as such by others). While it may be tempting to reach for the most extreme label one can think of to try and inspire others to reject something that seriously distresses you, when it goes into the realm of hyperbole it mostly functions to decrease the crediblility of the point you're making and lessens the significance of the label you're using.
  - freehunter 8y ago
    I was responding to the link that spaginal had posted about Daily Stormer. In that article, it says "[Daily Stormer] calls itself “The World’s Most Genocidal Republican Website.”" I am not referring to Britain First at all, and there is no hyperbole or reaching for extreme labels involved with my comment.
    - manfredo 8y ago
      Thanks for clarifying, as your previous post did not specify what group is being referred (and also talked about being banned from Facebook, which is why I inferred you were writing about Britian First).
      - freehunter 8y ago
        Daily Stormer was in the news a lot recently after being banned from, among (many) other things, Facebook.
    - spaginal 8y ago
      That was simply the first example I grabbed. Gab was deplatformed amongst others in the same manner.

freehunter 8y ago

The slope is not nearly as slippery as you're imagining it to be. I'm not sure literal white supremecists are the shining beacon upon which you want to hang your argument (if I'm wrong on this, you don't need to read any further). We're not talking about a controversial political opinion, we're not talking about coastal liberals shutting down good American conservative free speech, we're talking about white supremecists who refer to themselves as genocidal. People who want to murder (and have done so) non-white people just for the crime of having a different skin color. But beyond that absolutely ridiculous argument, yes. The Internet is free-as-in-freedom as long as you have an IP address. If you want to start your own competitor to the World Wide Web because a few private companies exercise their right to not to business with you, you can do that. The Web and the Internet work without domain names, and if you really need your message out there and your followers really need to hear it, is typing in an IP address too much work? If it is, then your message might not be as convincing as you think it is. But even still, you can host your own website or Internet service regardless. And you can start your own registrar and host your own servers and make your own payment processor. That is entirely possible and at that point only the government can stop you (and even then, you can choose your own government like The Pirate Bay did). If your movement is stopped by a lack of convenience, that's not Facebook's problem. Saying "but Facebook banned me" as if Facebook was the entire Internet or even the entire Web doesn't fly. Only you can give them that power, and you can take that power from them whenever you want to. Being banned from Twitter/Facebook/YouTube is only a problem if you honestly believe that Twitter/Facebook/YouTube owns the entire Internet. But they don't. You're free to start a competitor any time you want.

manfredo 8y ago
Do you have a source to back up your claim that Britain First have "referred to themselves as genocidal"? Extreme claims require extreme evidence, and I have not been able to find instances where they have referred to themselves as such. You're making a very significant claim when you say that Britian First has described themselves as genocidal (as opposed to being described as such by others). While it may be tempting to reach for the most extreme label one can think of to try and inspire others to reject something that seriously distresses you, when it goes into the realm of hyperbole it mostly functions to decrease the crediblility of the point you're making and lessens the significance of the label you're using.
- freehunter 8y ago
  I was responding to the link that spaginal had posted about Daily Stormer. In that article, it says "[Daily Stormer] calls itself “The World’s Most Genocidal Republican Website.”" I am not referring to Britain First at all, and there is no hyperbole or reaching for extreme labels involved with my comment.
  - manfredo 8y ago
    Thanks for clarifying, as your previous post did not specify what group is being referred (and also talked about being banned from Facebook, which is why I inferred you were writing about Britian First).
    - freehunter 8y ago
      Daily Stormer was in the news a lot recently after being banned from, among (many) other things, Facebook.
  - spaginal 8y ago
    That was simply the first example I grabbed. Gab was deplatformed amongst others in the same manner.