3 ms·

What's the story on this? I have at least one site that sounds like it might be in danger if that's true.

elmerfud 3y ago
https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/20/the-daily-stormer-was-back-online-for-a-quick-second/?guccounter=1 https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/20/the-daily-stormer-was-back... I don't defend what the daily stormer has to say but I would defend their right to say it and not be canceled. To be clear it wasn't only namecheap involved in this effort to cancel their domain but since the name cheap was mentioned as an alternative to GoDaddy that is why I brought it up. We may not like the consequences of free speech but this mindset that businesses like namecheap simply registering a name so DNS resolution can happen refusing to do that based upon content they disagree with but in no way participate in bothers me a lot. Especially when it seems to be a coordinated effort of all of the registrars attempting to do this. Should the people who hold those beliefs not be allowed to rent housing, purchase electricity, shop at the grocery store, eating the restaurants? It is very dangerous to exclude people from a society based upon their ideology and their speech.
- fckgw 3y ago
  Those companies are also exercising their free speech rights not to platform that kind of hateful content. Free speech give you the right to talk but not the right to force me to listen.
  - elmerfud 3y ago
    Do you take the same attitude when a Colorado bakery decided not to sell a cake to a homosexual couple? At least that's what the news media portrayed. The reality was that the bakery was more than willing to sell them a cake but what they were unwilling to do was use their creative expression to support a position they did not agree with. Because when you say companies in a coordinated effort can exercise their freedoms to exclude people they disagree with from society in a manner that forms collusion so it effectively deplatforms them from being able to express themselves in society that is where it becomes wrong. In the same manner it would be wrong if shops that sell things refuse to sell things to people who lived a lifestyle they don't agree with. No one is asking and name cheap to use their expressive creative ability or even to host on their own systems content they find objectionable. It is simply asking them to do the one minimum thing which is register a domain name and have some glue records. The fact you do not see the difference is troublesome. You need to take a long hard cold look at history and how your position has denied people of all beliefs the capability to function in society.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
  Are we having this conversation for the millionth time? Free speech doesn't mean everyone is required to give you a platform.
  - elmerfud 3y ago
    An example was asked for and given where there is an ideological based denial of service. Because a registrar doesn't host or display any information that is objectionable it's simply registers some glue records. They are not giving anyone a platform. Your same attitude means that I'm not required to sell cakes to people I don't like, but I bet you were on the other side of that debate. And that is the fundamental danger of using ideology to justify denying someone a place in society. It has been used throughout history to deny a minority a place in a society that the majority didn't want. That is not the kind of world we should strive to have where the majority can deny the minority based on an ideology and lock them out of society.
  - toast0 3y ago
    A domain registrar and a domain registry should really be acting as a common carrier. If it's not legal in their relevant jurisdictions, fine. Otherwise, my registrar is hardly endorsing my content. Website hosting, sure, they've got wide latitude to exercise editorial control. DNS services, yeah, I guess. If your registrar doesn't like your content, maybe they should disallow you to use ancillary services and refund you for the free dns they usually provide, but won't. But I don't think they should be making editorial judgement about the content, all the content they see is your domain name, your contact info, your registered authoritative name servers, and ips for registered name servers inside your domain.
    - tsukikage 3y ago
      Domain registrars do not exist in a vacuum. In order for a registrar to be able to make this kind of guarantee, they also need it from /their/ contractors. Specifically, for a registrar to stay in business, ISPs and payment processors should not be able to refuse them service (or, if they are also an ISP in their own right, other ISPs should not be able to refuse connection/peering arrangements). Otherwise, they're stuck between a rock and a hard place: either they kick out the undesirables to appease their suppliers, or the whole business is forced to fold and cannot serve anyone at all. A few more steps in this chain and your free market democracy isn't looking so very free any more.

https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/20/the-daily-stormer-was-back-online-for-a-quick-second/?guccounter=1 https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/20/the-daily-stormer-was-back... I don't defend what the daily stormer has to say but I would defend their right to say it and not be canceled. To be clear it wasn't only namecheap involved in this effort to cancel their domain but since the name cheap was mentioned as an alternative to GoDaddy that is why I brought it up. We may not like the consequences of free speech but this mindset that businesses like namecheap simply registering a name so DNS resolution can happen refusing to do that based upon content they disagree with but in no way participate in bothers me a lot. Especially when it seems to be a coordinated effort of all of the registrars attempting to do this. Should the people who hold those beliefs not be allowed to rent housing, purchase electricity, shop at the grocery store, eating the restaurants? It is very dangerous to exclude people from a society based upon their ideology and their speech.

fckgw 3y ago
Those companies are also exercising their free speech rights not to platform that kind of hateful content. Free speech give you the right to talk but not the right to force me to listen.
- elmerfud 3y ago
  Do you take the same attitude when a Colorado bakery decided not to sell a cake to a homosexual couple? At least that's what the news media portrayed. The reality was that the bakery was more than willing to sell them a cake but what they were unwilling to do was use their creative expression to support a position they did not agree with. Because when you say companies in a coordinated effort can exercise their freedoms to exclude people they disagree with from society in a manner that forms collusion so it effectively deplatforms them from being able to express themselves in society that is where it becomes wrong. In the same manner it would be wrong if shops that sell things refuse to sell things to people who lived a lifestyle they don't agree with. No one is asking and name cheap to use their expressive creative ability or even to host on their own systems content they find objectionable. It is simply asking them to do the one minimum thing which is register a domain name and have some glue records. The fact you do not see the difference is troublesome. You need to take a long hard cold look at history and how your position has denied people of all beliefs the capability to function in society.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
Are we having this conversation for the millionth time? Free speech doesn't mean everyone is required to give you a platform.
- elmerfud 3y ago
  An example was asked for and given where there is an ideological based denial of service. Because a registrar doesn't host or display any information that is objectionable it's simply registers some glue records. They are not giving anyone a platform. Your same attitude means that I'm not required to sell cakes to people I don't like, but I bet you were on the other side of that debate. And that is the fundamental danger of using ideology to justify denying someone a place in society. It has been used throughout history to deny a minority a place in a society that the majority didn't want. That is not the kind of world we should strive to have where the majority can deny the minority based on an ideology and lock them out of society.
- toast0 3y ago
  A domain registrar and a domain registry should really be acting as a common carrier. If it's not legal in their relevant jurisdictions, fine. Otherwise, my registrar is hardly endorsing my content. Website hosting, sure, they've got wide latitude to exercise editorial control. DNS services, yeah, I guess. If your registrar doesn't like your content, maybe they should disallow you to use ancillary services and refund you for the free dns they usually provide, but won't. But I don't think they should be making editorial judgement about the content, all the content they see is your domain name, your contact info, your registered authoritative name servers, and ips for registered name servers inside your domain.
  - tsukikage 3y ago
    Domain registrars do not exist in a vacuum. In order for a registrar to be able to make this kind of guarantee, they also need it from /their/ contractors. Specifically, for a registrar to stay in business, ISPs and payment processors should not be able to refuse them service (or, if they are also an ISP in their own right, other ISPs should not be able to refuse connection/peering arrangements). Otherwise, they're stuck between a rock and a hard place: either they kick out the undesirables to appease their suppliers, or the whole business is forced to fold and cannot serve anyone at all. A few more steps in this chain and your free market democracy isn't looking so very free any more.