9 ms·

Are there any good hosts in the United States that won't cut you off on ideological grounds? This shit should be plainly illegal, IMO. If it's in compliance wit

by m0zg 5y ago

Are there any good hosts in the United States that won't cut you off on ideological grounds? This shit should be plainly illegal, IMO. If it's in compliance with US law, I should be able to host whatever the fuck I want. I'd argue this is a better deal for the hosting companies as well. Why? For the same reason why your company can't cancel your line if it doesn't like what you're discussing on the phone.

wmf 5y ago
AFAIK Epik is the main Nazi-friendly hosting company these days.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  You're really referring to hosting providers that allow anti-abortion websites as "Nazi-friendly" when Nazis were in favor of abortions? https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/as-many-abortions-as-possible-12118 https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/as-many-abortions-a... > "When girls and women in the Occupied Territories of the East have abortions, we can only be in favor of it; in any case we should not oppose it." > "The means for abortion and contraceptive means may be offered publicly without police restriction."
bingohbangoh 5y ago
https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/ https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/ comes to mind
- Grieving 5y ago
  IIRC they've said they have no problem kicking people off for ideological reasons, and that the name has more to do with pricing than anything.
booi 5y ago
Private companies in the US can discriminate or otherwise choose who they want as customers except if the criteria is a protected class. Currently, political reasons are not protected so Godaddy would be within its rights to deny service.
- elmerfud 5y ago
  Private companies can discriminate against non-protected classes and you are correct political reasons or position on abortion is not a protected class. The problem is in allowing this behavior to continue by companies unchecked eventually the law will come in and start assigning new protected classes. People have forgotten their history and why certain attributes have become protected classes for which discrimination is not allowed. This was not done due to some moral altruism by the laws and courts. These were assigned protective class status because private companies began to exclude people and eventually all or most private companies in an area started excluding people of a certain race or gender etc... This results in people not being able to participate in society. While they remain free people and the businesses have their freedom to choose it is not real freedom when you cannot participate in the society that you are part of. This is why we now have enforced protected classes. When we do not stand up as reasonable people and participate in the process to indicate the companies we do not want them to be the moral arbiters of our lives we are effectively letting them determine who can participate in the online society and who cannot. The idea that just because of company can do something does not mean it should and does not mean that we should allow it. If we get to the point that we have to make laws to protect someone's race or sex or now what's coming is political affiliation or opinion then we as a society have failed in our duty to each other. Creating a new law and codifying the fact that people should be allowed to participate in society even with opinions that we do not like should cause everyone to take a hard look in the mirror and realize they are the problem. Whatever happened to the idea that I do not agree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it.
  - minikites 5y ago
    >started excluding people of a certain race or gender Race and gender is about something you are, political opinions are not something you are.
    - elmerfud 5y ago
      Among the protected classes is religion. That is not something that you are that is something that you choose. The point being that when we start excluding people from participating in the society based on things we do not like ,be they opinions that we can change or be they features about who we are, we place ourselves in a bad position as a society.
commandlinefan 5y ago
> This shit should be plainly illegal, IMO Although I'm pretty outraged that a hosting provider would pull something like this, I can't for the life of me think of a way to "safely" outlaw it without creating all sorts of unintended consequences. Then again, I'm not a lawmaker, so maybe they're more clever than I am. It seems that a lot of private enterprise in the Unites States believes that the US conservative movement is so irrelevant as to be safe to completely ignore - if it turns out they're wrong, they're in for a rough next few years.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  They violated GoDaddy's terms of service. You want a hosting provider with no ToS ?
- France_is_bacon 5y ago
  I'm outraged that I can't live in your house or apartment with you, and that you have the legal right to kick me out of your home. Private property is one of the main reasons for what the USA stands for. GoDaddy is a private company. Conservatives are ALWAYS outraged when something like this goes against them, but when they want it the other way it is perfectly ok - like the bakery where the owners didn't want to create a wedding cake for two homosexuals. Then it was all, "A private business can do what they want, which means not working for the gay." As far as the religious freedom law goes, it is supposed to acknowledge deeply held religious beliefs. For example, Satanic Temple just cites Religious Freedom Restoration Act to request access to abortion drugs in aftermath of Texas ban. But, I'm SURE that the religious freaks that support the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, WON'T support it because they are hell-bent (pun intended) on violated the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America allowing the freedom of religion, with some lame-ass excuse like saying that the Satanic Temple is not a religion. To them it isn't. But for those who belong to it, it sure is.
  - m0zg 5y ago
    I regularly see on this very site liberals outraged about things "private" companies are fully within their rights to do. You can't be for and against something depending on the political affiliation of the affected party. That's pure hypocrisy. Then again, hypocrisy is the main currency of politics, as well as the only true manifestation of power. Fortunes change, though. Don't wail 10 years from now when corporations decide that they like the conservative side better and ban you from the internet. Because that's within their rights too.
ablerman 5y ago
You can host whatever the fuck you want. So can GoDaddy.
- Minor49er 5y ago
  Apparently you can't host whatever you want. Otherwise we wouldn't be in this comment section talking about this story.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    Not sure you understand the meaning of the word "host" in this context.
    - Minor49er 5y ago
      Rest assured, I do
      - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
        Well, then your post is obviously nonsense to you, just as it was to several other people. You buy a server, find a coloc facility, pay the price to colocate, plug your server in, host whatever you want, free of essentially all terms of service. That's "hosting whatever you want".
        josephcsible 5y ago
        What happens when the colocation facility throws you out too?
        PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
        When you can't find another one that allows colocation with a ToS that will let you do whatever you want, you rent a T1 line or better to your own home. Have you ever heard of a ISP kicking someone off a rented dedicated cable? Maybe it has happened. I have no memory of ever hearing about this in any case where there wasn't prima facie illegal acitivit occuring over the line.
watwut 5y ago
The whole site is about punishing people and their relations on ideological grounds.
PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
GoDaddy [ EDIT: appears to be ] cutting them off for collecting information about other users or persons without the consent of those other users or persons. That would be a clear violation of their ToS. The cutoff might happen to align with GoDaddy's political views - god, I hope so - but the explicit reason for it is not political.
- commandlinefan 5y ago
  I'm too lazy to look it up, but I wonder if GoDaddy hosts any of those "is your neighbor a sex offender" websites - I'm sure that the people identified by those would rather remain anonymous.
- jdgoesmarching 5y ago
  It’s dumb that profit-driven decisions that cause all sorts of human rights violations are rarely considered “political” by tech conservatives. However, the moment you trample upon the idealistic notion of a “free” internet that has long since been captured by a few corporate entities? Must be a giant threat to the future of society. Caring more about an ideological slippery slope than the actual people who will suffer under these laws in Texas is an amazingly insulated position that I can’t take seriously.
mcphage 5y ago
> Are there any good hosts in the United States that won't cut you off on ideological grounds? This shit should be plainly illegal, IMO. A similar case went all the way to the US Supreme Court, who decided that yes, it is legal to be refused service on ideological grounds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
eesmith 5y ago
It's not the same reason. The phone company is a common carrier, under the Communications Act of 1934, which is why it can't cancel your line in the scenario you gave. GoDaddy is not regulated under common carrier laws. In the absence of any law saying otherwise, GoDaddy can exercise its freedom of association to kick off people for whatever reason, subject perhaps only to civil lawsuits for breaking any contract with their customers -- and of course the court of public opinion. In this case, they appear to be saying it's a ToS violation, and The Verge suggests it violates prohibitions on users who "“collect or harvest” any personal information “about another User or any other person or entity without their express prior written consent.”" That may well be the cover used to hide an ideologically reason, but why wouldn't that be enough? There are cases where your phone company is allowed to cut you off (try plugging the phone line to the power line.) Savannah, is a hosting site for "software forge for people committed to free software", at http://savannah.gnu.org/ http://savannah.gnu.org/ . They will cut you off on ideological grounds should you switch to a non-free license. Should that also be illegal?
- josephcsible 5y ago
  > GoDaddy is not regulated under common carrier laws. Maybe they, and other Internet infrastructure providers, should be. > Savannah, is a hosting site for "software forge for people committed to free software", at http://savannah.gnu.org/ http://savannah.gnu.org/ . They will cut you off on ideological grounds should you switch to a non-free license. > Should that also be illegal? In your example, would they be cutting off everyone who chooses a non-free license, or just singling out one person for political reasons, and turning a blind eye to a bunch of other people also using non-free licenses?
- treesprite82 5y ago
  > The phone company is a common carrier, under the Communications Act of 1934, which is why it can't cancel your line in the scenario you gave. > GoDaddy is not regulated under common carrier laws. > In the absence of any law saying otherwise, GoDaddy can exercise its freedom of association to kick off people for whatever reason [...] m0zg saying that it should be illegal presumably means that they already know that it's not currently illegal, rather they want similar regulations introduced (or the removal of existing protections) to affect GoDaddy. > Should that also be illegal? The way I often see it argued by those in favor of repealing/reinterpreting Section 230 is that a service shouldn't have the protections of a platform/carrier while acting as a publisher with full control over the content. A curated software library should be fine as a publisher, just that they'd only have the same protections as non-digital publishers.
vestigialhonor 5y ago
GoDaddy has been involved in controversy of this sort before (Verisign, Ratemycop, Family Album, Kata’ib Hezbollah). If profile whistleblower had done their research, might have seen it coming. I agree you should be able to host what the eff you want, but it's the choice of the host at the end of the day. I'm more than certain that the site had a massive influx of traffic clogging it, what with some using VPN and throw away emails to spam fake reports, and some who were trying to cash in. In a nutshell, usually a host includes a statement expressly reserving the right to terminate or cancel an account as per service terms, so they are well within their rights.

by m0zg 5y ago

wmf 5y ago

AFAIK Epik is the main Nazi-friendly hosting company these days.

josephcsible 5y ago
You're really referring to hosting providers that allow anti-abortion websites as "Nazi-friendly" when Nazis were in favor of abortions? https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/as-many-abortions-as-possible-12118 https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/as-many-abortions-a... > "When girls and women in the Occupied Territories of the East have abortions, we can only be in favor of it; in any case we should not oppose it." > "The means for abortion and contraceptive means may be offered publicly without police restriction."

bingohbangoh 5y ago

https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/ https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/ comes to mind

Grieving 5y ago
IIRC they've said they have no problem kicking people off for ideological reasons, and that the name has more to do with pricing than anything.

booi 5y ago

Private companies in the US can discriminate or otherwise choose who they want as customers except if the criteria is a protected class. Currently, political reasons are not protected so Godaddy would be within its rights to deny service.

elmerfud 5y ago
Private companies can discriminate against non-protected classes and you are correct political reasons or position on abortion is not a protected class. The problem is in allowing this behavior to continue by companies unchecked eventually the law will come in and start assigning new protected classes. People have forgotten their history and why certain attributes have become protected classes for which discrimination is not allowed. This was not done due to some moral altruism by the laws and courts. These were assigned protective class status because private companies began to exclude people and eventually all or most private companies in an area started excluding people of a certain race or gender etc... This results in people not being able to participate in society. While they remain free people and the businesses have their freedom to choose it is not real freedom when you cannot participate in the society that you are part of. This is why we now have enforced protected classes. When we do not stand up as reasonable people and participate in the process to indicate the companies we do not want them to be the moral arbiters of our lives we are effectively letting them determine who can participate in the online society and who cannot. The idea that just because of company can do something does not mean it should and does not mean that we should allow it. If we get to the point that we have to make laws to protect someone's race or sex or now what's coming is political affiliation or opinion then we as a society have failed in our duty to each other. Creating a new law and codifying the fact that people should be allowed to participate in society even with opinions that we do not like should cause everyone to take a hard look in the mirror and realize they are the problem. Whatever happened to the idea that I do not agree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it.
- minikites 5y ago
  >started excluding people of a certain race or gender Race and gender is about something you are, political opinions are not something you are.
  - elmerfud 5y ago
    Among the protected classes is religion. That is not something that you are that is something that you choose. The point being that when we start excluding people from participating in the society based on things we do not like ,be they opinions that we can change or be they features about who we are, we place ourselves in a bad position as a society.

commandlinefan 5y ago

> This shit should be plainly illegal, IMO Although I'm pretty outraged that a hosting provider would pull something like this, I can't for the life of me think of a way to "safely" outlaw it without creating all sorts of unintended consequences. Then again, I'm not a lawmaker, so maybe they're more clever than I am. It seems that a lot of private enterprise in the Unites States believes that the US conservative movement is so irrelevant as to be safe to completely ignore - if it turns out they're wrong, they're in for a rough next few years.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
They violated GoDaddy's terms of service. You want a hosting provider with no ToS ?
France_is_bacon 5y ago
I'm outraged that I can't live in your house or apartment with you, and that you have the legal right to kick me out of your home. Private property is one of the main reasons for what the USA stands for. GoDaddy is a private company. Conservatives are ALWAYS outraged when something like this goes against them, but when they want it the other way it is perfectly ok - like the bakery where the owners didn't want to create a wedding cake for two homosexuals. Then it was all, "A private business can do what they want, which means not working for the gay." As far as the religious freedom law goes, it is supposed to acknowledge deeply held religious beliefs. For example, Satanic Temple just cites Religious Freedom Restoration Act to request access to abortion drugs in aftermath of Texas ban. But, I'm SURE that the religious freaks that support the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, WON'T support it because they are hell-bent (pun intended) on violated the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America allowing the freedom of religion, with some lame-ass excuse like saying that the Satanic Temple is not a religion. To them it isn't. But for those who belong to it, it sure is.
- m0zg 5y ago
  I regularly see on this very site liberals outraged about things "private" companies are fully within their rights to do. You can't be for and against something depending on the political affiliation of the affected party. That's pure hypocrisy. Then again, hypocrisy is the main currency of politics, as well as the only true manifestation of power. Fortunes change, though. Don't wail 10 years from now when corporations decide that they like the conservative side better and ban you from the internet. Because that's within their rights too.

ablerman 5y ago

You can host whatever the fuck you want. So can GoDaddy.

Minor49er 5y ago
Apparently you can't host whatever you want. Otherwise we wouldn't be in this comment section talking about this story.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  Not sure you understand the meaning of the word "host" in this context.
  - Minor49er 5y ago
    Rest assured, I do
    - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
      Well, then your post is obviously nonsense to you, just as it was to several other people. You buy a server, find a coloc facility, pay the price to colocate, plug your server in, host whatever you want, free of essentially all terms of service. That's "hosting whatever you want".
      - josephcsible 5y ago
        What happens when the colocation facility throws you out too?
        PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
        When you can't find another one that allows colocation with a ToS that will let you do whatever you want, you rent a T1 line or better to your own home. Have you ever heard of a ISP kicking someone off a rented dedicated cable? Maybe it has happened. I have no memory of ever hearing about this in any case where there wasn't prima facie illegal acitivit occuring over the line.

watwut 5y ago

The whole site is about punishing people and their relations on ideological grounds.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

GoDaddy [ EDIT: appears to be ] cutting them off for collecting information about other users or persons without the consent of those other users or persons. That would be a clear violation of their ToS. The cutoff might happen to align with GoDaddy's political views - god, I hope so - but the explicit reason for it is not political.

commandlinefan 5y ago
I'm too lazy to look it up, but I wonder if GoDaddy hosts any of those "is your neighbor a sex offender" websites - I'm sure that the people identified by those would rather remain anonymous.
jdgoesmarching 5y ago
It’s dumb that profit-driven decisions that cause all sorts of human rights violations are rarely considered “political” by tech conservatives. However, the moment you trample upon the idealistic notion of a “free” internet that has long since been captured by a few corporate entities? Must be a giant threat to the future of society. Caring more about an ideological slippery slope than the actual people who will suffer under these laws in Texas is an amazingly insulated position that I can’t take seriously.

mcphage 5y ago

> Are there any good hosts in the United States that won't cut you off on ideological grounds? This shit should be plainly illegal, IMO. A similar case went all the way to the US Supreme Court, who decided that yes, it is legal to be refused service on ideological grounds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

eesmith 5y ago

It's not the same reason. The phone company is a common carrier, under the Communications Act of 1934, which is why it can't cancel your line in the scenario you gave. GoDaddy is not regulated under common carrier laws. In the absence of any law saying otherwise, GoDaddy can exercise its freedom of association to kick off people for whatever reason, subject perhaps only to civil lawsuits for breaking any contract with their customers -- and of course the court of public opinion. In this case, they appear to be saying it's a ToS violation, and The Verge suggests it violates prohibitions on users who "“collect or harvest” any personal information “about another User or any other person or entity without their express prior written consent.”" That may well be the cover used to hide an ideologically reason, but why wouldn't that be enough? There are cases where your phone company is allowed to cut you off (try plugging the phone line to the power line.) Savannah, is a hosting site for "software forge for people committed to free software", at http://savannah.gnu.org/ http://savannah.gnu.org/ . They will cut you off on ideological grounds should you switch to a non-free license. Should that also be illegal?

josephcsible 5y ago
> GoDaddy is not regulated under common carrier laws. Maybe they, and other Internet infrastructure providers, should be. > Savannah, is a hosting site for "software forge for people committed to free software", at http://savannah.gnu.org/ http://savannah.gnu.org/ . They will cut you off on ideological grounds should you switch to a non-free license. > Should that also be illegal? In your example, would they be cutting off everyone who chooses a non-free license, or just singling out one person for political reasons, and turning a blind eye to a bunch of other people also using non-free licenses?
treesprite82 5y ago
> The phone company is a common carrier, under the Communications Act of 1934, which is why it can't cancel your line in the scenario you gave. > GoDaddy is not regulated under common carrier laws. > In the absence of any law saying otherwise, GoDaddy can exercise its freedom of association to kick off people for whatever reason [...] m0zg saying that it should be illegal presumably means that they already know that it's not currently illegal, rather they want similar regulations introduced (or the removal of existing protections) to affect GoDaddy. > Should that also be illegal? The way I often see it argued by those in favor of repealing/reinterpreting Section 230 is that a service shouldn't have the protections of a platform/carrier while acting as a publisher with full control over the content. A curated software library should be fine as a publisher, just that they'd only have the same protections as non-digital publishers.

vestigialhonor 5y ago

GoDaddy has been involved in controversy of this sort before (Verisign, Ratemycop, Family Album, Kata’ib Hezbollah). If profile whistleblower had done their research, might have seen it coming. I agree you should be able to host what the eff you want, but it's the choice of the host at the end of the day. I'm more than certain that the site had a massive influx of traffic clogging it, what with some using VPN and throw away emails to spam fake reports, and some who were trying to cash in. In a nutshell, usually a host includes a statement expressly reserving the right to terminate or cancel an account as per service terms, so they are well within their rights.