back to article Daily Stormer binned by yet another registrar, due to business risks

Yet another domain name registrar has declined to give white supremacist web site The Daily Stormer an easy way back onto the web. easyDNS has refused to host the site, which has already been binned by GoDaddy after activists pointed out the site had a long history of publishing hate speech and took its rhetoric to new lows …

Page:

  1. Florida1920
    Pint

    Philosophies will ultimately succeed or fail on their own merits within the marketplace of ideas

    Looks like that's what's happening. People aren't exactly lining up with open checkbooks to find DS a home they can hang on to.

  2. Snow Wombat
    Big Brother

    It beings.

    While I disagree with what TDS says, I will defend their right to say it.

    This is a terrifying development that domain registrars are acting as censor, and stating that certain types of content can not even have a domain.

    This is the beginning of the slippery slope, because in every other realm of the Internet, we have seen this behaviour. It starts with "Hate speech" but very quickly the scope creeps and we have all manner of things being banned, usually by a very narrow and vocal group of far left / Marxist / Social Justice types.

    Unless registrars are presented with court paperwork demanding they take down a domain, they shouldn't be touched.

    PR / Business reasons is just a cover for censorship.

    1. Florida1920

      Re: It beings.

      This is the beginning of the slippery slope,

      I think Neo-Nazis are the end of a slippery slope. Hello, these people think the Holocaust either didn't happen or was a Good Thing. These people think lynching black people is cool. Somehow, interdicting them doesn't seem like a bad idea. We're not talking censoring PETA or the Sierra Club here. And I won't be convinced that corporations -- not governments -- refusing service to supremacist sites poses any threat to free speech. Where do we as moral actors draw the line and say, No, this shall not stand?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: It beings.

        > "I think Neo-Nazis are the end of a slippery slope."

        How glib, but that's not Snow Wombat's point, and that is that this is censorship, period. You may think it's great that these Nazis are being blocked by private companies from having a web presence, but you would sing a different tune were some group you support to be treated that way.

        You will respond that you would never support that kind of group, but I say the groups you do support might get characterized that way by someone, some day. It's happened plenty of times. And at those times there were plenty who talked like you, and were more than happy to help stomp on the censorship targets, because they were "bad."

        1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: It beings.

          It's not upto some registrar to decide what we can and can't see on the net - that's Google's job

        2. scarletherring

          Re: It beings.

          > You may think it's great that these Nazis are being blocked by private companies from having a web presence, but you would sing a different tune were some group you support to be treated that way.

          And yet I think it's a pretty safe bet that you were completely fine with that bigoted bakery (private business) refusing to service gay customers? You can't have it both ways, in fact that's exactly what you're accusing others of here.

      2. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

        Re: Free speach

        Defending peoples' right to tell happy stories about the littlest elf is easy. It is more difficult when the speech is the rantings of a deluded Nazi. If you start saying only some kinds of free speech is all right then you will end up with presidential edicts banning the mention of modal warning and primate strange.

        [Post modified to allow publication in the US.]

    2. Teiwaz

      Re: It beings.

      usually by a very narrow and vocal group of far left / Marxist / Social Justice types.

      Yeah, 'cause they are obviously the only types that want to ban things they don't agree with, and everyone else, including the right just want free speech, open dialog and fluffy bunnies...</sarcasm-indicator>

      While I kind of agree with most your sentiments, that little addendum clearly screams right wing nut-job.

      And your posting history confirms it.

    3. Winkypop Silver badge
      Thumb Down

      Re: It beings.

      Once you invoke nazis (and their ilk) you lose all rights and respect.

      Period.

      Never give a nazi a break, never.

    4. Joe Werner Silver badge

      Re: It beings.

      They are f'ing Nazis (no, really, and the corollary of Godwin doesn't hold here).

      While I do believe that everybody has rights and freedoms, there are limits. Those people deny the fact that the Germans ('k and some collaborators, mostly the Krauts) killed millions of Jews (and gypsies and gays and people with mental or physical disabilities and "communists", well more like social democrats, the latter on smaller scales) - or some of them even think it was a good thing and you should repeat that with [insert group here].

      If you are an animal rights activist, a communist, an ultra conservative, a pastafarian, a member of $religiousgroup, anything, I will hear your thoughts and listen to them (once...) and defend your right to say them. If you start advocating atrocities and mass murder (or murdering my family and friends) you are out.

      Yes, free speech is a right. Rights always come with responsibilities - at least that is what my parents taught me...

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: It beings.

        If it is so very wrong to extend the right to free speech to Nazi Party groups, then why was it the policy of the ACLU to defend that speech for so long? The Legal Director at the ACLU recently wrote an article addressing these points. In short, he disagrees with you on this topic.

        I case you don't know, the ACLU is pretty respected on these issues, because of their past stands on principle even when the majority strongly opposed them.

      2. h4rm0ny

        Re: It beings.

        It's all well and good saying Nazis shouldn't have the right to Free Speech (though I believe the right to Free Speech is absolute), but are you unaware that people get labelled Nazis all the time without actually being such? That reasonable discussion gets labelled as Hate Speech and suppressed? Brigette Bardot has been sentenced multiple times for "Hate Speech" in France and fined substantially because she is a vocal animal rights campaigner and despises the Islamic practice of Halal slaughter. In Denmark it is illegal to "mock or scorn any established religious group". What if Sarah Champion - an MP who was heavily involved investigating the Rotherham child abuse cases talks about rape tolerance in Pakistani communities - gets labelled as Hate Speech, as some would like? In Germany, there's a good chance it would have been classed as Hate Speech and supressed. And in the UK, if she weren't an MP but just a local woman saying the same things, I could see her being prosecuted.

        You can say Nazis shouldn't have Free Speech, but nobody gets to decide whether others view them as a Nazi or not. Hell, I've seen Antifa types marching with a hammer and sickle logo! How many Jewish people were killed by the Soviets? No doubt some wag will try to split the finest of hairs and argue that it's a communist symbol, not a Soviet one (despite being created in Russia during the Bolshevik revolution). But if that's the case, then the Swastika is a Hindu good luck symbol when American racists use it and my uncle is Xenu.

        Allowing businesses to decide who gets to talk / assemble / promote themselves and who doesn't, is very, very dangerous. And yes - a slippery slope. Removing Free Speech is probably the slipperiest of slopes in fact.

        Not to treat this whole topic lightly, but first they came for the Nazis, and I did nothing because I am not a Nazi...

      3. Eltonga
        Headmaster

        Re: It beings.

        Actually, Free Speech is a right, and nazis have it too.

        The difference is what happens after you exercise that right, and that's what everyone is confusing. One has the right to say whatever one thinks, but there is the rest of the legal aspect that applies.

        Defending oneself on the basis of free speech is childlish at best.

      4. CrashMarik

        Re: It beings.

        If you don't want to hear what they have to say don't listen.

        I refute the right of anyone to tell me what I can and can't listen to. There's already people censoring news of crimes committed by protected groups. Hazards of living in a big city and all that.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: It beings.

      I see we are back to the same argument.

      It's every f*cking article.

      This boils down to a few simple questions and you have to take your "but they are Nazis" hats off.

      Do you want freedom of speech?

      Do you want some company to force someones ideology off the internet because it offends someone?

      Do you want censorship even if it in the future it could censor something you agree with?

      Do you agree that it's not right to refuse someone access to the infrastructure of the internet because the majority don't agree?

      Put simply, if you answered "Yes" to any of those questions then you can't be in favour of the actions of these companies.

      A very good point is that fascists (or Nazis) burned books and oppressed any opinion that disagreed with their ideology. What exactly are you doing now? How very fascist of you all.

      Leave them where there are so they can be ridiculed and shown for the idiots they are because lets be honest they aren't going to use these websites to recruit any sane rational person, unless of course you want to force them underground where you don't know how many there are or what they are up to?

    6. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      This isn't censorship

      They aren't preventing Daily Stormer from being heard, they are refusing to provide them a platform to shout from. You may support free speech, maybe to the point where if you owned a vacant lot next to your house you'd be happy to make it available for public gatherings and allow republicans, democrats, save the whales, cut our taxes and so forth to use it to get their message out.

      Perhaps you may draw the line at pro choice and pro life gatherings, not because you want to censor them but because emotions get inflamed to the point that when some people find out you are responsible with giving the "enemy" a platform to spread their views that they decide to respond by vandalizing the car sitting in your driveway next door. Sure that's illegal, but it is still a hassle having to drive around a car with "baby killer" spray painted on it, and your insurance going up when it happens twice in six months.

      Even if you publicly say you are 100% against Daily Stormer's speech, if you give them a platform you are going to have deal with a lot of negative publicity/boycotts, and likely be subject to constant DOS attacks that affect your other customers, etc. Even nazis have a right to free speech, but companies are not required to provide them the platform, and it isn't a violation of their free speech for others to say "if you give you them a platform, I will boycott you". It is no different than if company X donated money to Planned Parenthood and you were pro-life, you deciding not to buy company X's products.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: This isn't censorship

        It is censorship.

        It's censorship dictated by a populist movement. The majority disagree so the companies bow to their pressure.

        Now what happens when that populist movement moves onto something else, let's say Muslims because they perceive them to be intolerant of the LGBT community. Would you be happy for hosting companies to ban any religious or Muslim websites even if they don't have any anti LGBT messages just because they are Muslims?

        I've said it before and I will say again, populist movements that exert control over media do not end well. If they get a charismatic leader who says what they want to hear then those Nazis that everyone hates is what you will become, history will repeat itself but it's ok you can justify it because you are "doing the right thing" just as those Germans back in the 1930's believed they were "doing the right thing". These Nazis are nothing compared to a group backed by a large populist movement.

        1. Mad Mike

          Re: This isn't censorship

          It seems a lot of the commentators are knee jerk responding to the word 'Nazi' and loosing rational thought. Yes, everything these people stand for is abhorent. Absolutely spot on. However, they are simply one abhorent group amongst many. There are plenty of other groups around the world spreading hate and bile and even carrying it out. People are simply responding to the word as it has historical legacy from WWII.

          In reality, there are many groups and organisations, whether extreme left, right or whatever that are just as bad. However, most (I won't say all as I can't guarantee that) still have domains registered. Take the BNP in Britain. They're a sort of slightly (only a bit) lighter version of these guys. They still have domain names. Think of all the governments around the world that are busy slaughtering their own or others citizens, yet they still have domain names. Think of the terrorist organisations (I know, depends on which side you're on....freedom fighter/terrorist etc.) that actually have domain names!!

          If you believe that DS should be banned from having a domain name, whether by statute or the court of public opinion, you should also ban many, many other organisation, governments etc. as well. If the internet is to remain a reasonably free place, with access for ALL, the use of companies to run parts of it needs to stop. Companies whose concern is for profits, will always do things to protect their profits rather than for good in general, hence this. Domain names shouldn't be controlled by companies operating for profit. A simple registration service that takes no view at all should be implemented.

          Also, when banning DS, have people thought of the downside of doing that? Whilst it's there, you can bet security services etc. are looking at every visitor and keeping an eye on some. The fact the website is there, allows them to find people who might do something. Taking it away doesn't stop these people. It just drives them use things less easily monitored. So, I bet the security services aren't in favour of this.

          Whether you can blame a commercial company for doing this or not, it does in effect end up censoring someone or some groups opinion. This isn't about right wing nutters, as there are a lot of left wing nutters around as well and if you look through history, just has many have been killed through left wing ideology as right wing. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc.etc. The issue with censorship is not who should be censored. The issue is that when you start, like all projects, it's very open to scope creep. History shows us that censorship normally results in more and more restrictions, across areas never even considered when started. The issue is that it's all about opinions rather than fact or anything like that. Once you start down the road, it will eventually hit something you care about. It's just a matter of time.

        2. katrinab Silver badge

          Re: This isn't censorship

          Please don't involve "the LGBT community" in your islamophobia. 52% of Muslims support the acceptance of homosexuality, compared with 34% of white Christians; and Muslims are way more accepting of trans people. Bisexuals are equally invisible everywhere.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: This isn't censorship

            @katrinab

            Typical knee jerk reaction to not reading or understanding simple English and it's use.

            Let me repeat it for you and please take the time to read it slowly.

            "let's say Muslims because they perceive them to be intolerant of the LGBT community"

            "they perceive" - This means someone has viewpoint that is not correct unless in their perception, the "they" in my example are the populist movement or the majority who could be led to believe it to be true. I use this example because it is an incorrect assessment that is thrown about by the press and in social media.

            How you got to Islamophobia from my comment is quite frankly ridiculous and you should go and take some time to think about how you react to things and I suggest when you first perceive something you disagree with that you read it again to see if it does or if as in this case it actually agrees with you.

          2. MrRimmerSIR!

            Re: This isn't censorship

            Doesn't appear that way in practice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory

        3. Gordon JC Pearce

          Re: This isn't censorship

          How exactly is it censorship? No-one is stopping TDS propagating their message.

        4. PatientOne

          Re: This isn't censorship

          "It is censorship.

          It's censorship dictated by a populist movement. The majority disagree so the companies bow to their pressure."

          I disagree: The DS made a claim that their provider supported their views: The provider was remaining neutral in interest of free speech. That put the provider into an awkward position and the CEO decided that to maintain their neutrality, they had to kick the DS out. The CEO went on record regarding this and was not exactly happy with being backed into a corner by TDS like that. Other providers are aware of this and don't want to be put into the same position, not because of opponents of the DS, but because of actions the DS have already taken.

          So this is less about free speech and more about false claims.

    7. Dan 55 Silver badge

      Re: It beings.

      This is a terrifying development...

      No it's not. The terrifying development is if they get into power.

      The most sensible thing to would be to follow Germany's lead on how to deal with neo-Nazis/alt-right or whatever you want to call them, since they know a thing or two about their history and how they work.

      I can't believe we're still having this debate about whether or not this ideology deserves free speech or not when history shows how it gains a foothold and what it does when it gets it.

      You might defend their right to say it. They certainly wouldn't defend any of your rights.

      1. Mad Mike

        Re: It beings.

        @Dan 55.

        "No it's not. The terrifying development is if they get into power.

        The most sensible thing to would be to follow Germany's lead on how to deal with neo-Nazis/alt-right or whatever you want to call them, since they know a thing or two about their history and how they work.

        I can't believe we're still having this debate about whether or not this ideology deserves free speech or not when history shows how it gains a foothold and what it does when it gets it.

        You might defend their right to say it. They certainly wouldn't defend any of your rights."

        I think you need to recheck your history and if you understand how the Nazis got into power, you might understand how some recent leaders have got into power as well. The chances of these people getting into power are fleetingly low given todays world and where we sit. Are you seriously suggesting the Nazis got into power because all the Germans were right wing murderous nutters? The truth is that Germans were desperate and in terrible econimic difficulties. Hitler used several well tried and tested methods to get people to support him (common enemy, great speeches, bully boys etc.). The number of genuinely hardcore Nazi nutters in Germany was actually quite low. The reality was, he was offering a route out of their problems for the remainder and he was the only way offering anything, so they went with it. Then, everybody gets swept up in it. Just look at any conflict and you will see how people can carry out the most evil acts through getting swept up in things.

        Pol Pot persuaded the poor of Cambodia to again carry out all sorts of evil acts because he promised to make their lives better. This included killing anyone with an education!! Of course, it didn't work. Stalin murdered many times more people (directly or through working to death in gulags) than Hitler for all sorts of different reasons. Both these (and many others) were hard left, the supposed polar opposite of Hitler. But, they end up doing the same?

        So, stop thinking of this as a Nazi issue. It isn't. It is much wider than that. It isn't a right or left thing either. They're as bad as each other when taken to extremes.

        1. h4rm0ny

          Re: It beings.

          >>I can't believe we're still having this debate about whether or not this ideology deserves free speech or not when history shows how it gains a foothold and what it does when it gets it.

          Fun fact: The Weimar Republic (1930's Germany) introduced Hate Speech laws prohibiting "insulting religious communities" and use them to prosecute hundreds of Nazis. They're some of Europe's oldest Hate Speech laws. You know what happened? It boosted Nazi membership because people began to feel that the Nazis must have a point.

          And you know what I see a lot of today? People getting angrier and angrier that they "aren't allowed to discuss things anymore" and finding themselves increasingly aligned with more extreme groups because they've nowhere else to go or be heard.

    8. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: It beings.

      While I disagree with what TDS says, I will defend their right to say it.

      This is a terrifying development that domain registrars are acting as censor, and stating that certain types of content can not even have a domain.

      Ah, the old problem with comprehensive reading. EasyDNS' decision not to host them isn't censorship, because that would involve actively preventing them from going elsewhere (as a Registrar, you could block a domain from moving and then blank out the DNS settings so they're effectively offline). EasyDNS took a decision as a business that that was not the kind of customer they wanted which is a decision every business is 100% entitled to make. The arguments, to a degree, actually do not matter - they have that right, full stop.

      Where the arguments come into play is to identify the motivation behind not accepting their money, and I think they are sound. You're looking at one end of the slope (which is IMHO not that slippery in this case due to the exact explanation of motivation), I look at the other end: where would EasyDNS end up if they did NOT do that? Should they also accept pure Nazi sites until the law comes marching with a warrant? Child pr0n outfits? Where do you draw the line of what they should "accept" as a business because it may otherwise be censorship?

      When I review a need for service, one of the explicitly required points of examination is the ethics of the people that run it (which, by the way also has a bearing on how they treat you as a customer). We go that deep because it matters to us as the ethics and associated reputation of a suppliers are but one step removed from your own. EasyDNS became a supplier exactly because of discussions with Mark. I found his stance refreshingly sane and pragmatic, and these recent blog posts prove that yet again.

      1. Naselus

        Re: It beings.

        " EasyDNS took a decision as a business that that was not the kind of customer they wanted which is a decision every business is 100% entitled to make."

        This.

        easyDNS is a company. It can decide who it does and does not do business with. 'Freedom of Speech' doesn't mean 'freedom from consequences of speech'. And one of the consequences of indulging in objectionable speech is, people don't want to do business with you or be associated with you.

        This is also why those homophobic cake shops in the US should be permitted to refuse service to gay weddings; I don't agree with them, but they are entitled to refuse to do business with people if they want. They are, after all, only disadvantaging themselves by refusing the business. This is exactly the same. It's interesting that our left-wing brethren howled with rage about the cake shops, and yet are cool with this one, while our right-wing chums were fine with the cake shops refusing service to gays but are appalled that someone might want to avoid doing business with neo-Nazis. If you were to be even-handed, then either both are fine, or both are wrong.

        Though really, if you're gonna pick one and not the other, you should side with the gays over the Nazis. I mean, seriously, it shouldn't need saying, but if you're faced with the choice, you always pick the side which worships Kylie Minogue over the side which worships Adolf Hitler.

        As for the 'this is censorship' argument; no, it's not. For starters, no-one is cutting the Stormer off from the web. Not being able to have a DNS pointer to your website is not 'being silenced'. They might be forced to rely on an IP address instead of a nice fascist-y domain name, but they're still connected to the net and can be visited. And even if they were being cut off from the internet, they can still spew their bile offline through any means that will allow them.

    9. hellsatan

      Re: It beings.

      'This is a terrifying development that domain registrars are acting as censor, and stating that certain types of content can not even have a domain.'

      This has nothing to do with censorship.

      If two persons from NAMBLA or some such were talking loudly in your local walmart about some of their more unsavoury proclivities you would be more than happy if Walmart asked them to leave. Is that censorship? Hell no, they can talk about what they want but equally a business can ask anybody to leave.

      If a business wants to disassociate itself with ANY customer it is perfectly entitled to for any reason it chooses, unless it breaches certain specific laws (here in the UK would be homophobia/racism etc).

      Associating itself with TDS WILL damage the reputation of any web service provider, and its an entirely legitimate business argument for refusing to provide that service...

      1. h4rm0ny

        Re: It beings.

        >>This has nothing to do with censorship.

        Of course it has something to do with censorship. As a legal definition, not so much. Because the laws on censorship were written in an age when it was the government that had the power to come down and shut down your printing press or handing out leaflets on the street. Those laws are outdated. Today, corporations have the power to stop you being heard. The world's eyeballs are controlled by Google and Facebook and Twitter. Increasingly places where people gather - malls, parks - are privately owned and their owners can and will throw you out. Google can and will de-monetize your channel on YouTube and Patreon can ban you. And sure, maybe you can put up your video on Daily Motion. How many of you reading this visit that compared to YouTube.

        If you want to demand that everyone online speak only in terms of the US legal system, then sure - you can tell us this isn't censorship. But the rest of us trying to have a normal conversation will disregard it. In the modern day, corporations can and do censor you. To pretend not being able to get web-hosting or be shown on YouTube or Facebook isn't significant, is to be dishonest. And to insist it isn't censorship, is to insist we all accept US law makers as the arbiters of the English language.

    10. This post has been deleted by its author

    11. Antron Argaiv Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: It beings.

      "While I disagree with what TDS says, I will defend their right to say it."

      They have a legal right under the First Amendment to say their piece without government interference.

      However, nobody is required to help them say it. This includes businesses. If TDS doesn't like this, they're free to sue.

      "...very quickly the scope creeps and we have all manner of things being banned, usually by a very narrow and vocal group of far left / Marxist / Social Justice types."

      Usually? I can name a number of right wing organizations and governments where freedom of the press is not "a thing". Read some history. You could start with Nazi Germany (since we're talking about TDS, this isn't a Godwin)

    12. Old Englishman

      Re: It beings.

      Well said, sir.

    13. Gordon JC Pearce

      Re: It beings.

      I would defend their right to say it, but I would not help them say it. They're more than welcome to go and find someone to help them spread their message, but it won't be me.

    14. Triggerfish

      Re: It beings.

      It's not censorship, they are perfectly withing their rights to start their own hosting company and ISP, if not and someone who owns a company doesn't want to host them that's not censorship. That's the companies owners having their own freedom to make a choice.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: It beings.

        Sure they are but they are being forced to by the majority, they don't have a choice because if they do they would quickly go out of business.

        What if a devout Catholic was running a hosting company and refused to host any websites related to <insert something Catholics have issues with>? Then someone announces it on social media.

        Would that be ok as well or would this majority force them to or put them out of business?

        At the end of the day it's mob rule and someone has to stand up to it before it gets out of hand.

        It's censorship by the majority to what they don't like and it won't end well.

        I really don't understand why people don't understand this concept? Just wait till you get a political party that ticks all your boxes then the fun is really going to start.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: At the end of the day it's mob rule

          It's mob rule when hundreds of fascists turn up and start driving cars at crowds of people they don't agree with. Refusing to propagate the hate that leads to that kind of thing is a sensible and reasonable response.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: It beings.

          something like conservapedia perhaps ?

    15. Anonymous Cowtard
      Facepalm

      Re: It beings.

      It beings.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: It beings.

        F*ck knows how many opinions and comments have been shared within this thread, no one has noticed the spelling mistake till now.

        Was it intentional?

        You may never know because you were all too fixated with your own opinions.

        Well played.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: It beings.

          I noticed it. We're discussing something a bit more important than spelling.

    16. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: It beings.

      "While I disagree with what TDS says, I will defend their right to say it."

      And they have the right to take their soap box to any street corner and preach their views. But they don't have the right to expect other to help them do it, even for money. A commercial business is allowed to choose who to do business with so long as they are not breaking any anti-discrimination laws.

  3. markjr

    Quick note from easyDNS

    To be clear, we don't bill ourselves as "The Free Speech Registrar". As I say in the post quoted, we have a *reputation* as such, and because of that reputation we felt the need to explain ourselves. Reputations are built on past actions and track records. If our decision around DS impairs that rep, so be it.

    Further, this isn't really a "free speech" issue at all. DS were never clients and we did nothing to censor their content. They can say whatever they want, but they really shouldn't be surprised if nobody wants to enter into business with them to help them say it.

    In that sense, the free speech subtext to this could be "everybody has the right to say no to a Nazi".

    Finally, as I told a few other people who think we are somehow obligated to take on a specific client, it's easy to say that when you are sitting comfortably outside the blast radius. If you feel so strongly about it *you* do it, or call up some key vendor your business relies on and convince *them* to do it.

    That is basically what capitalism is all about.

    Thank you.

    1. Florida1920
      Pint

      Re: Quick note from easyDNS

      -------------------------------------------->

      Finally, as I told a few other people who think we are somehow obligated to take on a specific client, it's easy to say that when you are sitting comfortably outside the blast radius.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Quick note from easyDNS

      "They can say whatever they want, but they really shouldn't be surprised if nobody wants to enter into business with them to help them say it."

      Enter into business? You are aware that to have a web site, one MUST do business with a registrar, and that ICANN controls what and how many companies get to be registrars? So if enough of these "private companies" block a group in this way it amounts to a complete ban.

      Do you want to see that kind of power in the hands of the registrars and by extension, in the hands of ICANN? Who decided ICANN was to be the world's arbiter of what kind of speech is allowed on the web? What if they became ideological in some way, wouldn't that lead to censorship of competing ideologies?

      This is how the ACLU in the US used to reason about speech (even nazi speech), before their recent turn away from the concept of free speech for all and not just some.

      1. Frank Oz

        Re: Quick note from easyDNS

        For mine, if you preach intolerance, discrimination and disrespect of others based on race, creed or whatever ... then you deserve to have the same intolerance, discrimination and disrespect centred on you.

        Can't have it both ways. You're hoisted on your own petard as they say.

        The more mature amongst us respect life's reciprocity, the bigoted and intolerant don't.

        1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: Quick note from easyDNS

          You also can't have it both ways if you are a business

          You can't say we took a principled stand to ban X and then claim that you are merely hosting Y and don't necessarily support their views. They gave effectively said that they stand behind everyone else they host

          1. Teiwaz

            Re: Quick note from easyDNS

            In this case, they are clearly taking note of experiences of hosting company Z, whom X went around saying agreed with their views because they did business.

            They gave effectively said that they stand behind everyone else they host

            No, X, claimed their previous hosting company stood behind them - I'm not surprised any company that wants to be neutral declines them at this point.

          2. markjr

            Re: Quick note from easyDNS

            This is a good point, because, contrary to many other registrars, we also *do* have a reputation for being vigorous advocates for our customers.

            We of course enforce our AUP, and DS would have been in instant violation of 2 specific points of our AUP (violation of the NAP, and knowingly bringing in a DDoS attack).

      2. markjr

        Re: Quick note from easyDNS

        Forgive me, for copying and paste my response to the exact same argument over on our blog:

        There are over thousands of registrars and pretty well anybody can become one (hell, after the drop catching bubble burst you can buy a registrar now for a few thousand bucks).

        They all set their own acceptable use policies and have their own risk tolerance. Somebody running a website that absolutely nobody wants to touch sounds more likely their problem, not the registrars. (Gee, could it possibly be because nobody wants to do business with self-proclaimed fascists spewing utter hatred toward others, including our families and our customers? How unreasonable.)

        Further:

        If DailyStormer really wants somebody to take them on, they’re going to have to pony up a lot of money to do it (expecting some registrar to take on this risk for a $15 annual domain fee is delusional) and at some price level there will either be a taker, or somebody will enter the field to service the need (providing internet infrastructure to Nazis).

        (Maybe DS can empty out that bitcoin wallet of theirs with over $80,000 and buy themselves a registrar)

        As for us, we’re not interested at any price and that is totally our prerogative.

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like