Neo-nazi group moves to 'dark web' after domain registration revoked(reuters.com)
reuters.com
Neo-nazi group moves to 'dark web' after domain registration revoked
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-virginia-protests-daily-stormer-idUSKCN1AV1HY?il=0
79 comments
The first registrar (GoDaddy) gave them 24 hours to GTFO. They could have moved to any other registrar, but their next try also told them to GTFO. So what happened is exactly what you're calling OK.
I hope so, but revoked appears to mean taken away. That's different than not allowing to register, I think?
I would be pretty happy to be mistaken.
I would be pretty happy to be mistaken.
I have no idea where you got a mistaken impression of what's going on, but if you google [godaddy daily stormer] you'll find a ton of news stories explaining that godaddy told Daily Stormer to find a new registrar. While written by non-technical reporters for a non-technical audience, it's pretty clear what's going on.
What does the word revoke mean? I've read a dozen articles that simply say revoked. When I see the rules for registration, I see revoke along with terms like suspend and terminate.
Can they register it again, if they find a company willing to service them? If not, I'm not okay with this. I'm not seeing any answers out there. Maybe they use the word revoke differently?
Can they register it again, if they find a company willing to service them? If not, I'm not okay with this. I'm not seeing any answers out there. Maybe they use the word revoke differently?
Given that you appear to be reading non-technical articles aimed at non-technical readers -- you haven't said what article you're reading, so I'm just guessing -- the word revoked doesn't mean anything technical at all. I see tons of articles getting it right that yes, they can move the domain to any registrar for .com that is willing to do business with them.
This is what happens when you give government authority to private entities. Bullying. In the sense that they are given power over someone else's property/livelihood/thing, with no accountability or fairness. And they then use it as a stick over someone's head with a technicality.
In this case, sure, a lot of us might not like the content of this website. That doesn't change the nature of the scenario. If I were to compare it to a simpler scenario: Prepaid electricity. Here in South Africa, the government sells it at "wholesale" prices to government-approved entities, so that they may re-sell to individuals. What would then be our response if one of those entities decided to refuse electricity to a house/building that this website was being hosted from?
In this case, sure, a lot of us might not like the content of this website. That doesn't change the nature of the scenario. If I were to compare it to a simpler scenario: Prepaid electricity. Here in South Africa, the government sells it at "wholesale" prices to government-approved entities, so that they may re-sell to individuals. What would then be our response if one of those entities decided to refuse electricity to a house/building that this website was being hosted from?
In the US, the electric utility is required to provide service by the government.
One the Internet, from a US point of view, you are correct that there is no equivalent of a "public square" that first amendment rights apply to. That is a problem, but, it's not GoDaddy's problem.
One the Internet, from a US point of view, you are correct that there is no equivalent of a "public square" that first amendment rights apply to. That is a problem, but, it's not GoDaddy's problem.
> I don't think I'm okay with this. I'm okay with them telling them to get a new registrar in short order. I'm not okay with a private company revoking a domain name
“revoking” is Reuters’ imprecise description of GoDaddy and then Google dropping thir business for ToS violations.
> and, if I understand correctly, not allowing it to be registered elsewhere.
I think you misunderstand; they got bounced for ToS violation shortly after moving to a new registrar (because they got bounced for the same reason by a previous registrar), and therefore ran into limits on the frequency of registration preventing moving to a new (third) registrar.
> Doesn't ICANN have a process for this?
ICANN specifically allows transfers (that aren't transfers back to the original registrar with that registrar's agreement) to be blocked within 60 days of a prior transfer.
> Isn't there a legal way, with due process, for this?
If the Daily Stormer feels their rights have been violated, the courts are open to them. Due process rights, however, apply to government action, not most private action.
“revoking” is Reuters’ imprecise description of GoDaddy and then Google dropping thir business for ToS violations.
> and, if I understand correctly, not allowing it to be registered elsewhere.
I think you misunderstand; they got bounced for ToS violation shortly after moving to a new registrar (because they got bounced for the same reason by a previous registrar), and therefore ran into limits on the frequency of registration preventing moving to a new (third) registrar.
> Doesn't ICANN have a process for this?
ICANN specifically allows transfers (that aren't transfers back to the original registrar with that registrar's agreement) to be blocked within 60 days of a prior transfer.
> Isn't there a legal way, with due process, for this?
If the Daily Stormer feels their rights have been violated, the courts are open to them. Due process rights, however, apply to government action, not most private action.
Yeah, I know what due process means.
It seems to me that some sort of property rights must apply. It's not even really a speech issue, at that point. That's what the excuse was, but they're being deprived of their property, however intangible it may be.
Maybe it'll make it to court? If so, it may be an interesting case. They seize domains as assets, so they are already asserting it is property and has value. I think?
It seems to me that some sort of property rights must apply. It's not even really a speech issue, at that point. That's what the excuse was, but they're being deprived of their property, however intangible it may be.
Maybe it'll make it to court? If so, it may be an interesting case. They seize domains as assets, so they are already asserting it is property and has value. I think?
> It seems to me that some sort of property rights must apply.
The Daily Stormer certainly has a property interest in the name, however, they presumably contractually agreed to both regitrars policies (and, through them, the ICANN Transfer Policy) when signing up for service, and the present result is the consequence of each register imposing consequences for ToS breaches and Google additionally exercising the provisions of the ICANN policy addressing repeated, closely timed transfer requests.
It's theoretically possible the Google and/or GoDaddy actions were contractually improper, in which case remedies are available at law, but the existence of a property right does not prevent out from impairing your own ability to make use of that property by a combination of poorly-chosen voluntary actions including contracts touching on the property.
The Daily Stormer certainly has a property interest in the name, however, they presumably contractually agreed to both regitrars policies (and, through them, the ICANN Transfer Policy) when signing up for service, and the present result is the consequence of each register imposing consequences for ToS breaches and Google additionally exercising the provisions of the ICANN policy addressing repeated, closely timed transfer requests.
It's theoretically possible the Google and/or GoDaddy actions were contractually improper, in which case remedies are available at law, but the existence of a property right does not prevent out from impairing your own ability to make use of that property by a combination of poorly-chosen voluntary actions including contracts touching on the property.
I'm not sure you can cede certain rights and, even if so, I'm still not okay with it. Just because something isn't against the law does not mean I'm okay with it.
If this is how it works, it is broken. Require an injunction from a court of law, perhaps? It's broken. Please fix it.
If this is how it works, it is broken. Require an injunction from a court of law, perhaps? It's broken. Please fix it.
> I'm not sure you can cede certain rights and, even if so, I'm still not okay with it.
Sure, you can't sell yourself into slavery, you can't contract away your right to vote, and there are some others. Your interest in transferable property like a domain name, you absolutely can cede, in whole or in part, by contract. That's what makes markets work.
> Just because something isn't against the law does not mean I'm okay with it.
What, specifically, are you not okay with? What are the bounds of the limits of the right to contract that out want to impose to correct it?
Sure, you can't sell yourself into slavery, you can't contract away your right to vote, and there are some others. Your interest in transferable property like a domain name, you absolutely can cede, in whole or in part, by contract. That's what makes markets work.
> Just because something isn't against the law does not mean I'm okay with it.
What, specifically, are you not okay with? What are the bounds of the limits of the right to contract that out want to impose to correct it?
I'd start with the ability to take away their property without any oversight, independent authority, and appeal process. You shouldn't even be able to cede that right by contract.
A private company took their property. I'm not okay with that. I'd probably be willing to compromise and say they have to give them five business days to move the domain name. It's not like DNS is hard to host. I'd rather they be forced to use some sort of independent body, complete with appeals and representation.
Markets work because of property rights. While the registrars have some, they are the least harmed.
This isn't something I'm comfortable with, even if it's Nazis. I'd much rather it go through some sort of court/arbitration prior to revocation. They weren't abusing the service, they were just being crappy people. Which, I might add, seems to be a running theme for Nazis.
A private company took their property. I'm not okay with that. I'd probably be willing to compromise and say they have to give them five business days to move the domain name. It's not like DNS is hard to host. I'd rather they be forced to use some sort of independent body, complete with appeals and representation.
Markets work because of property rights. While the registrars have some, they are the least harmed.
This isn't something I'm comfortable with, even if it's Nazis. I'd much rather it go through some sort of court/arbitration prior to revocation. They weren't abusing the service, they were just being crappy people. Which, I might add, seems to be a running theme for Nazis.
> I'd start with the ability to take away their property without any oversight, independent authority, and appeal process.
There is oversight, independent authority, and appeal process as long as the courts are open. And the property isn't “taken away”, though there is a temporary impairment of its use.
> You shouldn't even be able to cede that right by contract.
That makes no sense if you can cede the property itself by contract. Even if the degree of arbitrary control you suggest was done it would be identical to ceding the underlying property and recieving back limited and terminable use from the party to whom it had been ceded. Clearly, in a world where you can transfer the property, you should be able to do this, as well.
> A private company took their property
No, they absolutely did not.
There is oversight, independent authority, and appeal process as long as the courts are open. And the property isn't “taken away”, though there is a temporary impairment of its use.
> You shouldn't even be able to cede that right by contract.
That makes no sense if you can cede the property itself by contract. Even if the degree of arbitrary control you suggest was done it would be identical to ceding the underlying property and recieving back limited and terminable use from the party to whom it had been ceded. Clearly, in a world where you can transfer the property, you should be able to do this, as well.
> A private company took their property
No, they absolutely did not.
So, if bring your car back, sixty days after taking it, it wasn't taken away?
They took their property. They are deprived of its use. It really can't be more clear. That they may get it back later doesn't mean it wasn't taken.
They took their property. They are deprived of its use. It really can't be more clear. That they may get it back later doesn't mean it wasn't taken.
> So, if bring your car back, sixty days after taking it, it wasn't taken away?
If you give me your car as part of a contracted arrangement where, in certain circumstances, you will temporarily lose your access to it, then I haven't taken it from you, even if those circumstances materialize (as a result of your action or otherwise.)
I may have denied you access to it, but that happens all the time, with all kinds of property, in contracted relationships, without prior involvement of an outside arbiter.
If you give me your car as part of a contracted arrangement where, in certain circumstances, you will temporarily lose your access to it, then I haven't taken it from you, even if those circumstances materialize (as a result of your action or otherwise.)
I may have denied you access to it, but that happens all the time, with all kinds of property, in contracted relationships, without prior involvement of an outside arbiter.
And there are many times when this can not happen. Example? Eviction. That requires a process, complete with appeals. Good.
Do that.
This is not okay, even if Nazis suck.
Do that.
This is not okay, even if Nazis suck.
> And there are many times when this can not happen. Example? Eviction. That requires a process, complete with appeals. Good.
Sure. Now where is the argument that the special protection granted to real property tenants but not applied to most other contractual property arrangements should be paralleled for domain name registration?
> This is not okay, even if Nazis suck.
Repetition of a conclusion is not an argument for it.
Sure. Now where is the argument that the special protection granted to real property tenants but not applied to most other contractual property arrangements should be paralleled for domain name registration?
> This is not okay, even if Nazis suck.
Repetition of a conclusion is not an argument for it.
> Yeah, they are crappy people who do crappy things.
I mean, yeah, but to be clear, one of them killed a woman on Saturday on purpose. That's not crappy, that murder. Like, Nazis deserve rights like all people do. But when you start killing people and you shout a lot about how you are going to kill more people and 'cleanse' the US of a lot of people, like, I dunno, maybe we should do something more than just talk about how Nazis have rights. Like, come on guys, they're real actual Nazis, not video-game sprites. They want to kill you and your family and your friends and everyone you love and the are VERY clear and loud about this
EDIT: Here's a quote to back it up: "The thing about us fascists is, it's not that we don't believe in freedom of speech. You can say whatever you want. We'll just throw you in an oven."
-"Unite the Right" attendee, Pete Tefft, speaking to his father Pearce Tefft.
I mean, yeah, but to be clear, one of them killed a woman on Saturday on purpose. That's not crappy, that murder. Like, Nazis deserve rights like all people do. But when you start killing people and you shout a lot about how you are going to kill more people and 'cleanse' the US of a lot of people, like, I dunno, maybe we should do something more than just talk about how Nazis have rights. Like, come on guys, they're real actual Nazis, not video-game sprites. They want to kill you and your family and your friends and everyone you love and the are VERY clear and loud about this
EDIT: Here's a quote to back it up: "The thing about us fascists is, it's not that we don't believe in freedom of speech. You can say whatever you want. We'll just throw you in an oven."
-"Unite the Right" attendee, Pete Tefft, speaking to his father Pearce Tefft.
> if I understand correctly, not allowing it to be registered elsewhere.
Citation on that? From all I've read GoDaddy and Google refused to provide their service to them and haven't done anything to prevent a transfer? (They possibly technically could by keeping the domain registered on them, but AFAIK they can't legally do that)
Citation on that? From all I've read GoDaddy and Google refused to provide their service to them and haven't done anything to prevent a transfer? (They possibly technically could by keeping the domain registered on them, but AFAIK they can't legally do that)
What does revoked mean, in this case?
I would so love to be misunderstanding.
I would so love to be misunderstanding.
From my understanding of the terminology, it means that the registry (Verisign) took away control of the domain from the registrar (first GoDaddy, then Google), since those informed the registry that their contract with the site operator (which formed the legal basis for GoDaddy/Google managing the domain) has ended.
Media reports and GoDaddy's blog say that GoDaddy told Daily Stormer to find a new registrar within 24 hours, and facilitated a transfer to that new registrar, which was Google. That doesn't appear to match what you're saying.
Can they potentially go to a new registrar and register it there, without additional hassle, and assuming there's a registrar willing to service them?
If so, I'm good and crisis mostly averted. If not, I'm not okay with that. The term revoke, from the article and some searching, appears to be a permanent thing. As said already, I'd love to be wrong - but that's what revoke means to me and to a couple if quick searches.
When they revoke your license, you lost permission to drive.
If so, I'm good and crisis mostly averted. If not, I'm not okay with that. The term revoke, from the article and some searching, appears to be a permanent thing. As said already, I'd love to be wrong - but that's what revoke means to me and to a couple if quick searches.
When they revoke your license, you lost permission to drive.
Yes (EDIT: maybe? see below and comments)
To my knowledge, a registrar can't legally stop another registrar from taking over an arbitrary domain (they only have a say over domains delegated to them, and they have a contractual obligation to agree to a transfer of those if the domain owner requests it (potentially with exceptions of active lawsuits, but that doesn't seem relevant here)).
EDIT: Rereading the transfer policy and Google's terms, it looks like Google might actually hold onto the domain for the 60 day period despite having terminated their contract, they don't seem to be clearly required to release the domain in that case (which I assumed, apparently wrongly) and could block it for that period if they wanted?
To my knowledge, a registrar can't legally stop another registrar from taking over an arbitrary domain (they only have a say over domains delegated to them, and they have a contractual obligation to agree to a transfer of those if the domain owner requests it (potentially with exceptions of active lawsuits, but that doesn't seem relevant here)).
EDIT: Rereading the transfer policy and Google's terms, it looks like Google might actually hold onto the domain for the 60 day period despite having terminated their contract, they don't seem to be clearly required to release the domain in that case (which I assumed, apparently wrongly) and could block it for that period if they wanted?
> To my knowledge, a registrar can't legally stop another registrar from taking over an arbitrary domain (they only have a say over domains delegated to them, and they have a contractual obligation to agree to a transfer of those if the domain owner requests it (potentially with exceptions of active lawsuits, but that doesn't seem relevant here)).
There is a specific rule allowing denial of outbound transfer to a third registrar within 60 days of inbound transfer to the second from the first. (I.A.3.7.6 of the ICANN Transfer Policy.)
There is a specific rule allowing denial of outbound transfer to a third registrar within 60 days of inbound transfer to the second from the first. (I.A.3.7.6 of the ICANN Transfer Policy.)
I assumed that did not apply in this case, but you are right, there does not seem to be an exception for the case of a registrar terminating the contract one-sided.
There's, IMO, a good reason for not having the restriction you assumed: it discourages serial abuse (whether or not the DS is a valid example, in terms of actual ToS violations, Being a separate issue), assuming that there are likewise appropriate ICANN and/or civil law constraints on abusive termination by regitrars.
Another poster indicated it would take 60 days.
Yeah, if that's true, I'm not okay with this. I don't even like Nazis. I'm just not okay with property (albeit rented, s to speak) being taken without due process.
From my searching, I appear to not be alone in this sentiment. Hell, in the past, even the ACLU has defended the Nazis. So, I may still be in good company.
Yeah, if that's true, I'm not okay with this. I don't even like Nazis. I'm just not okay with property (albeit rented, s to speak) being taken without due process.
From my searching, I appear to not be alone in this sentiment. Hell, in the past, even the ACLU has defended the Nazis. So, I may still be in good company.
> Can they potentially go to a new registrar and register it there, without additional hassle, and assuming there's a registrar willing to service them?
Not within 60 days, apparently. So I think that claiming that the domain isn't being withheld is disingenuous, because the registrars knew perfectly well that the outcome of refusing service within 60 days after a transfer was that the owner would be locked out of their domain.
Not within 60 days, apparently. So I think that claiming that the domain isn't being withheld is disingenuous, because the registrars knew perfectly well that the outcome of refusing service within 60 days after a transfer was that the owner would be locked out of their domain.
> because the registrars knew perfectly well that the outcome of refusing service within 60 days after a transfer was that the owner would be locked out of their domain.
This is a bit disingenuous, the rule was established well beforehand. It's not like they made it up for this specific instance.
This is a bit disingenuous, the rule was established well beforehand. It's not like they made it up for this specific instance.
Yeah, I'm not okay with this - as it appears you are correct.
Huh... I'm stuck defending Nazis. Who woulda thunk it? Well, I'm mostly defending some semblance of due process, appeal, and property rights - they just also happen to be pretty much the worst people on the planet.
Huh... I'm stuck defending Nazis. Who woulda thunk it? Well, I'm mostly defending some semblance of due process, appeal, and property rights - they just also happen to be pretty much the worst people on the planet.
But what about Google's property rights. If they can't set the terms of use for their property, and enforce those terms, their property rights are denied.
Why are Nazis property rights so much more important that they need to be protected from tenporary harm inflicted on them by their own voluntary action?
Why are Nazis property rights so much more important that they need to be protected from tenporary harm inflicted on them by their own voluntary action?
Which of their property rights does Google loose by agreeing to a transfer of the domain earlier than they have to? (Nor do we explicitly know if they actually have stopped a transfer or not)
They aren't the ones being deprived of their property and, probably, income. Even renters have rights.
[deleted]
You argument only makes sense in the US. In most countries, hate speech is outlawed.
Both companies are in the US.
I have no idea where the registrant lives, however.
I have no idea where the registrant lives, however.
[deleted]
>That's pretty much the definition of the worst people you can find. However, much like I believe they deserve rights
It's possible to "deserve" some rights and not others on a case-by-case basis.
>Still, they appear to have been deprived of property and due process,
What property?
It's possible to "deserve" some rights and not others on a case-by-case basis.
>Still, they appear to have been deprived of property and due process,
What property?
The domain name. I'm pretty sure that's considered property, legally speaking. They will seize it as an asset, for example.
However, it may be that they have a different definition for revoked than I have. That would make me happy.
However, it may be that they have a different definition for revoked than I have. That would make me happy.
Does one actually own a domain name? I thought one owns a license to a domain name, which can be revoked at any time by the issuer, and that if it is seized, then it is the license that is seized. Interesting.
Courts have seized and transferred them as assets. I would like to think there is some rights there, much like the rights of renters. It doesn't appear as though there are many. I consider this to be a bad thing.
One might consider domains to be personal property, in that they exist only as a mapping on servers owned by people. On the other hand, registrars collect rent from them, so one could consider them private property. So I am not sure if I am in favour of domain names being considered property of any single person or not.
While this group is heinous, I can see this happening to a legit organization one day. This will be interesting to watch what happens when the web becomes closed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
Most western countries have law censoring hatespeech, although the web is very much open in those countries.
Yeah, we're watching that play out in real time already with UK and Germany in particular. Nothing could every go wrong with allowing the definition of hate-speech to be extended.
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10123/europe-censorship
Not to mention similar and completely vague "hate-speech" laws currently in process in South Africa:
https://rationalstandard.com/south-africans-must-stop-hate-s...
Have a look at this:
>The document defines hate speech as “an intentional communication (including speech) that advocates hatred or is threatening, abusive or insulting towards any other person or group of persons; and demonstrates a clear intention to incite others to harm or stir up violence against, or bring into contempt or ridicule, any person or group of persons defined by 17 different characteristics, ranging from race and gender to social origin, trade and occupation.” This broad definition of hate speech could empower government officials to punish people who express opinions that are critical of its actions or those divergent from its political position.
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10123/europe-censorship
Not to mention similar and completely vague "hate-speech" laws currently in process in South Africa:
https://rationalstandard.com/south-africans-must-stop-hate-s...
Have a look at this:
>The document defines hate speech as “an intentional communication (including speech) that advocates hatred or is threatening, abusive or insulting towards any other person or group of persons; and demonstrates a clear intention to incite others to harm or stir up violence against, or bring into contempt or ridicule, any person or group of persons defined by 17 different characteristics, ranging from race and gender to social origin, trade and occupation.” This broad definition of hate speech could empower government officials to punish people who express opinions that are critical of its actions or those divergent from its political position.
Of course if you do not trust in the judiciary system to do the right thing with it any law can be seen as potentially dangerous to your freedom. As of now, the US can't do anything about it whether it be just or unjust.
I'm not talking about the present. The current web as we know it is open for now, but the current trend is moving closer to a sanitized and closed one (see the UK as the primary trend setter). Censorship only starts with hate speech and other objectionable content. The end goal is an online version of Singapore. Every gov wants to become a Singapore, in terms of the gov's relationship with society, whether or not they admit it. The only one openly admitting it is China.
Slippery slope cuts both ways.
Neo-Nazis only start with brandishing flags and tiki torches. The end goal is ethnic cleansing. Literally.
Neo-Nazis only start with brandishing flags and tiki torches. The end goal is ethnic cleansing. Literally.
What happens when you have a closed web with an admistration that is sympathetic with them?
While it is far from perfect with tons of flaws, a system with an open society with free speech has more checks and balances than one without.
While it is far from perfect with tons of flaws, a system with an open society with free speech has more checks and balances than one without.
> What happens when you have a closed web with an admistration that is sympathetic with them?
They will fantasize with each other about gassing Jews, cucks, and libtards, I guess?
As long as they understand that the society does not approve of their deranged ideology, I'm OK. Better than making them feel they're legitimized: that's how you end up with a car slamming into crowd.
They will fantasize with each other about gassing Jews, cucks, and libtards, I guess?
As long as they understand that the society does not approve of their deranged ideology, I'm OK. Better than making them feel they're legitimized: that's how you end up with a car slamming into crowd.
I don't feel that allowing them to dox themselves legitimizes their movement. Besides in terms of being pragmatic, it's nice for the authorities to easily know what they are thinking every day and where they happen to be. That's valuable intel. That's harder to have in a closed web.
Yea it was always coming given the success of the great firewall.
Soon world governments will get in on this, if they haven't already.
Soon world governments will get in on this, if they haven't already.
Pretty much censoring themselves due to the higher technical barriers for accessing.
I suspect they'll get some new (normal) domains and be operating like normal within a week as the media fervor dies down.
I suspect they'll get some new (normal) domains and be operating like normal within a week as the media fervor dies down.
They could likely just publish a Tor2Web URL and have people use that. https://tor2web.org/.
I don't think this is a positive trend. Forcing your enemies underground simply means you have less insight into their operations, imo.
I don't think this is a positive trend. Forcing your enemies underground simply means you have less insight into their operations, imo.
It's not like they're moving to a completely closed invite only community so LE can still pretty easily monitor activity on the site if need be.
Perhaps, but setting up a .onion address is a lot of effort to go through if they could just find a new normal domain. Keep in mind this crowd might be pickier about what country their domain is registered in.
From a layman's point of view, I have always wondered why hackers rather create tools to hack normal citizen rather than go for those guys. I understand it is often about the money involved... But maybe they do and we don't hear about it ?
Anonymous is a weird group, sometimes you think they are acting for the good of humanity hunting down criminals, sometimes you hear them push a political agenda that is frankly debatable and arbitrary. Going after neo-nazis and promoters of hate is on the other hand an indisputably good cause...
Old neo nazi's were involved in a lot of crime and drug activities which made them alot scarier.
New neo nazi's seem alot more normal looking and young (based on charlotteville), which is probably more worrying for a different reason.
New neo nazi's seem alot more normal looking and young (based on charlotteville), which is probably more worrying for a different reason.
Would you say the same of convicted killers? How about rapists? Robbers? You know, they actually harmed people. Not like those evil "promoters of hate".
While we're at it, let's take your line of thinking to it's logical conclusion. If someone espouses, agrees with or promotes your currently-accepted definition of "hate", then we should not prosecute anyone that does harm to them, because it's an "indisputably good cause".
While we're at it, let's take your line of thinking to it's logical conclusion. If someone espouses, agrees with or promotes your currently-accepted definition of "hate", then we should not prosecute anyone that does harm to them, because it's an "indisputably good cause".
I know i should know this, but i dont really.
"Dark web" - can somebody give me a compare & contrast example, say with a house (rooms, driveway, address???) as the example.
In the "regular house i ...." in the "dark house i...."
"Dark web" - can somebody give me a compare & contrast example, say with a house (rooms, driveway, address???) as the example.
In the "regular house i ...." in the "dark house i...."
There are 3 levels:
1. Surface web: public facing websites that can be found on google. Think public parks that are accessible to anyone.
2. Deep web: websites that require log ins because they have private content. Think of your home which requires a key to get in, or your office which requires you to scan an ID badge to get in.
3. Dark web: websites that are only accessible using special tools like Tor and the Onion Browser. Like Batman's secret layer, the Bat Cave.
https://brightplanet.com/2014/03/clearing-confusion-deep-web...
1. Surface web: public facing websites that can be found on google. Think public parks that are accessible to anyone.
2. Deep web: websites that require log ins because they have private content. Think of your home which requires a key to get in, or your office which requires you to scan an ID badge to get in.
3. Dark web: websites that are only accessible using special tools like Tor and the Onion Browser. Like Batman's secret layer, the Bat Cave.
https://brightplanet.com/2014/03/clearing-confusion-deep-web...
[deleted]
Good, back to the fringe where they belong. At least for now.
I'd prefer them to interact with the rest of society, you'd hope that the need to engage with normal people would provide some moderation.
Either let them be or put them out of operation with the force of the law, but covering a problem issue with a blanket and pretending the problem is gone never worked.
Either let them be or put them out of operation with the force of the law, but covering a problem issue with a blanket and pretending the problem is gone never worked.
I sincerely doubt much of "the rest of society" has accounts on the daily stormer, it's the online equivalent of going to a Klan meeting. Sure you can do it, but most normal people have better things to do with their time.
Edit: No one's covering up the problem, people are just refusing to listen to or help them. This is the other side of free speech at work.
Edit: No one's covering up the problem, people are just refusing to listen to or help them. This is the other side of free speech at work.
>No one's covering up the problem, people are just refusing to listen
Refusing to listen would mean not visiting their website. Covering them up would mean driving them to the dark web.
Refusing to listen would mean not visiting their website. Covering them up would mean driving them to the dark web.
Refusing to help means not giving them a platform. They've been reduced to the 21st century equivalent of an underground newspaper produced out of someone's basement. I fail to see the problem.
If I act like a complete jackass and no one wants to sell me a house, society wouldn't be "covering me up". They'd just be refusing to associate with me, as is the right of every individual.
If I act like a complete jackass and no one wants to sell me a house, society wouldn't be "covering me up". They'd just be refusing to associate with me, as is the right of every individual.
>If I act like a complete jackass and no one wants to sell me a house, society wouldn't be "covering me up". They'd just be refusing to associate with me, as is the right of every individual.
That sort of thinking is what validated racial segregation of neighborhoods in the US.
>I fail to see the problem.
Failing to see the problem is the problem.
>We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.
-Dr. King, Letter From a Birmingham Jail
That sort of thinking is what validated racial segregation of neighborhoods in the US.
>I fail to see the problem.
Failing to see the problem is the problem.
>We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.
-Dr. King, Letter From a Birmingham Jail
Watch your context on that quote. Exposing racial injustice and providing a platform for the promotion of racial injustice (among other things perpetrated by the Daily Stormer) are two very different things.
In any case, what are you suggesting? That owning a web domain is a right? That people should be forced by law to listen to and debate all available opinions regardless of how inane or evil? Please be specific, because right now your only argument is that people shouldn't be free to choose who they associate with on the grounds that the right was once abused regarding racial segregation. Then you make an out-of-context appeal to authority that doesn't really support anything beyond exposing injustice.
Refusing the daily stormer a web registration isn't covering up injustice, it's refusing to support it.
In any case, what are you suggesting? That owning a web domain is a right? That people should be forced by law to listen to and debate all available opinions regardless of how inane or evil? Please be specific, because right now your only argument is that people shouldn't be free to choose who they associate with on the grounds that the right was once abused regarding racial segregation. Then you make an out-of-context appeal to authority that doesn't really support anything beyond exposing injustice.
Refusing the daily stormer a web registration isn't covering up injustice, it's refusing to support it.
>Watch your context on that quote. Exposing racial injustice and providing a platform for the promotion of racial injustice (among other things perpetrated by the Daily Stormer) are two very different things.
How can it be exposed if all the public platforms are withheld? The context is clear if you've studied Dr. King's tactics. The media (TV/newspapers, and now the internet) ignored racial injustice, and so Dr. King made a point of creating public agitation that forced the media to give it attention so that everyone could be made aware of its existence and decide how to deal with it.
>Please be specific
If your goal is to defeat your enemies, forcing them out of public view and into the shadows obscures your reconnaissance capabilities and decreases your strategic advantage.
>>Failing to see the problem is the problem.
How can it be exposed if all the public platforms are withheld? The context is clear if you've studied Dr. King's tactics. The media (TV/newspapers, and now the internet) ignored racial injustice, and so Dr. King made a point of creating public agitation that forced the media to give it attention so that everyone could be made aware of its existence and decide how to deal with it.
>Please be specific
If your goal is to defeat your enemies, forcing them out of public view and into the shadows obscures your reconnaissance capabilities and decreases your strategic advantage.
>>Failing to see the problem is the problem.
I think they were allowed to expose themselves quite effectively the other day. Neo-nazis also found ways to expose themselves well before the invention of the internet. They still have their free speech, but they are not entitled to aid in expressing it from private entities.
You can't "defeat" neo-nazis on a message board any more than you can "defeat" a racist grandparent at the dinner table. The goal is to prevent evil ideas from infiltrating mainstream society, they will always be around in some form or other. Judging by the reaction to the recent events in Charlottesville, including the revocation of the daily stormer's registration, it looks like mainstream society is soundly rejecting evil.
You can't "defeat" neo-nazis on a message board any more than you can "defeat" a racist grandparent at the dinner table. The goal is to prevent evil ideas from infiltrating mainstream society, they will always be around in some form or other. Judging by the reaction to the recent events in Charlottesville, including the revocation of the daily stormer's registration, it looks like mainstream society is soundly rejecting evil.
I had to look up what it looked like:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170812024002/https://www.daily...
Their disclaimer is interesting:
We here at the Daily Stormer are opposed to violence. We seek revolution through the education of the masses. When the information is available to the people, systemic change will be inevitable and unavoidable.
Anyone suggesting or promoting violence in the comments section will be immediately banned, permanently.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170812024002/https://www.daily...
Their disclaimer is interesting:
We here at the Daily Stormer are opposed to violence. We seek revolution through the education of the masses. When the information is available to the people, systemic change will be inevitable and unavoidable.
Anyone suggesting or promoting violence in the comments section will be immediately banned, permanently.
Yeah, if you look at what the alt-right says when confronted, often it's "I was being sarcastic/satirical" or "That Nazi armband that I was wearing is just an experiment" or "I'm not the angry racist they see in that photo".
All of it is just deflection.
All of it is just deflection.
I don't think I'm okay with this. I'm okay with them telling them to get a new registrar in short order. I'm not okay with a private company revoking a domain name and, if I understand correctly, not allowing it to be registered elsewhere.
I really don't like Nazis, but if I can't stand up for the reprehensible then how can I stand for the good people? Surely, there must be a more reasonable solution than allowing it to be done by a private company, without representation, without process, and without appeal?
Yes, their speech is horrible. Yes, they suck. I mean, they are Nazis. That's pretty much the definition of the worst people you can find. However, much like I believe they deserve rights, I believe they deserve due process.
I'm not okay with this. However, I'm willing to consider alternative views. Yeah, they are crappy people who do crappy things. Still, they appear to have been deprived of property and due process,
To be clear, I'm okay with the registrars saying go find another registrar. Revoking it seems like a huge step beyond the line. Doesn't ICANN have a process for this? Isn't there a legal way, with due process, for this?
Damn it... I really don't like defending Nazis but I have no reason to believe it will stop there.
Edit: It looks like they can get their domain name back, in 60 days. So, it may not be permanent, but I'm still not okay with this. I can't be okay with it, without due process and a process for appeal.