Google says it will ban Neo-Nazi site after domain name switch

[Taf the Ghost]

19 minutes ago, divito said:

We're all worried about ISPs being able to throttle things, deny web services, and compromise an "open" internet, and yet people are on here are advocating for this opinionated website to not have a platform. Can we stop being illogical asshats?

They can't. Because Nazis.

 

Oh, and the "Because Nazis" people support Commies. That's why they don't like being called Alt-Left. They can't accept that that Leftist Goon Squads were there to beat people up with bats. But if you don't bow down to the ground and condemn "NAZIS!", you clearly are a Nazi supporter. Because Nazis. This isn't Logic because it can't be. It's pure, emotional response to being supports of Goons and one of them got themselves killed in a situation setup by the Governor & Mayor. 

 

But it's okay when the Government makes the situation so someone gets killed. Because Nazis!

 

[ravenshrike]

11 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

They literally promote pedophilia.  That's the entire stated purpose of the organization.  Even if they don't engage in illegal acts on their website, it doesn't alter the intended premise of the group.

 Yep, and that's completely legal. However its not Google that registry goes through, though I'm sure they hold the registry for some supporting sites, its Tucows. You don't however see people saying it would be a good idea to dump them. .

[XenosTech]

Yup definitely not renewing my visa. America is a bit too crazy for an island guy like me get mixed up in, soon I'll just not bother traveling and just stay on my little island

[Taf the Ghost]

3 minutes ago, XenosTech said:

Yup definitely not renewing my visa. America is a bit too crazy for an island guy like me get mixed up in, soon I'll just not bother traveling and just stay on my little island

Central parts of Coastal Cities. For all of the actions against Statues, they're happening in cities on the coast region with extremely high voting rate for Democrats. Americans would call them "Deep Blue regions" or something like that.

 

Most of the country still has a larger Deer than Human population.

[XenosTech]

Just now, Taf the Ghost said:

Central parts of Coastal Cities. For all of the actions against Statues, they're happening in cities on the coast region with extremely high voting rate for Democrats. Americans would call them "Deep Blue regions" or something like that.

 

Most of the country still has a larger Deer than Human population.

Still not renewing it lol. As much as I like spending time with the few relatives I have alive over there, I'm not going to go there in all that madness, I'll skype them or something or they can come see me in canada when I got visit my brother.

[divito]

34 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Having a platform doesn't means providing services to the platform: They can buy their own hardware, get their own back-bone access, run their own DNS, etc. They're not entitle to a private company's DNS or indexing services.

So by that logic, customers and web services aren't entitled to any ISP's infrastructure build-out, and those ISPs are free to deny any and all content. You can't be for censorship of this group, and agree with net neutrality. 

Besides, being for any type of censorship is a weak and cowardly position in and of itself. It provides an unbalanced view of the world, limits organic discussion and breadth of learning, and is narrow-minded in nature. Any and all positions held should be evaluated on their merits. By censoring something, you're almost giving credence to the position that you're attempting to censor. This is how radicalism is bred.

If the position is abhorrent, or outlandish, etc..., let it die on its own. 

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Misanthrope said:

I understand Americans put a lot of value in freedom of speech

 

Sometimes it's easier to defend freedom of speech than it is to get your hands dirty trying to draw lines in the moral sand of society. 

[Fred Flintstone]

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

There have been plenty of satanic groups that have murdered.  Are they not just as bad?

Yes, but abrahamic religions did murder many people because of their beliefs, so shouldn't for instance catholic websites be banned? I think all ideologies deserve to exist as long as they're supported by someone.

[Mooshi]

I don't see how not like neo Nazis is grounds for muh freeze peach muh censorz!!!11!! It's being a completely rational human being. These dickheads have no right to be in my country and can unkindly fuck off.

 

The very idea of making this right vs left for some people is beyond mental. Same people trying to turn this into a free speech issue wouldn't dare call their grandparents who fought actual Nazis and not some try-hards a free speech hating commie.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Fred Flintstone said:

Yes, but abrahamic religions did murder many people because of their beliefs, so shouldn't for instance catholic websites be banned? I think all ideologies deserve to exist as long as they're supported by someone.

maybe,  my response was not defending or arguing that any one specific group should be banned, but that everyone has a different threshold at which point something should be done.  For some it is all out war and for others it is anything that promotes death.    As far as the religious debate goes you will find arguments for and against all over the place and most of them are rational and founded on honest ideals.   Which is why I said two posts ago, it is easier to hide behind freedom of speech than it is to start defining at which point a group/website/ideal should be censored.

[Jito463]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Which is why I said two posts ago, it is easier to hide behind freedom of speech than it is to start defining at which point a group/website/ideal should be censored.

For me, it's when they advocate for violence or for anything illegal (such as the aforementioned discussion I had with @ravenshrike about NAMBLA, which is not only illegal, but immoral as well).  If it's not illegal/violent - no matter how distasteful I may find it - they're free to spout whatever drivel they feel like.

[MrDynamicMan]

8 hours ago, Biggerboot said:

I'm normally pro free speech/anti censorship, but Nazism is objectively bad.  I don't see this case as giving Google and inch and them possibly taking a mile.  

And if nothing else, there's others you can register you domain with, or the dark web.

The day you make someone a martyr is the day you give them power. Now, this of us who really don't like nazis but like free speech are forced into a position where we have to defend their right to speak. 

[Memories4K]

2 hours ago, Pintend said:

It's not just illogical, it's also very hypocritical of people.

 

Why is it okay for companies like Google to neuter the thoughts, services and ideas of others but then people get their panties in a bunch when the ISPs dare to do it to companies like Google?

 

Advocating for Net Neutrality won't mean shit if big companies with a huge influence on the internet can just turn you away, alienating you from a huge audience of people.

 

2 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

Having a platform doesn't means providing services to the platform: They can buy their own hardware, get their own back-bone access, run their own DNS, etc. They're not entitle to a private company's DNS or indexing services.

 

1 hour ago, divito said:

So by that logic, customers and web services aren't entitled to any ISP's infrastructure build-out, and those ISPs are free to deny any and all content. You can't be for censorship of this group, and agree with net neutrality. 

As much as i like the idea of talking about morality on the LinusKekTips forum, i'm very interested in this specific portion of discussion (that is tech-related) that these lads brought up.

It's not that i'm against Google dropping Nazi shit, but this is a very interesting discussion to be had. Why should ISPs be treated any differently in the current American climate?

[bomerr]

Google needs to be regulated under net neutrality as utility. 

[mr moose]

33 minutes ago, Memories4K said:

It's not that i'm against Google dropping Nazi shit, but this is a very interesting discussion to be had. Why should ISPs be treated any differently in the current American climate?

 

In a true democracy where free speech is protected, google has as much right to deny it's services as the website in question has to voice their opinions.    In my mind the sheer existence of constitutionally protected free speech applies to everyone.  

 

I think the fact these guys are having a problem finding a domain host that will provide them services should be telling enough that society does not, on the whole, agree with their ideals.  

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, bomerr said:

Google needs to be regulated under net neutrality as utility. 

And why's that?   They are not providing a utility service.

[captain_to_fire]

2 hours ago, Pintend said:

It's not just illogical, it's also very hypocritical of people.

 

Why is it okay for companies like Google to neuter the thoughts, services and ideas of others but then people get their panties in a bunch when the ISPs dare to do it to companies like Google?

 

Advocating for Net Neutrality won't mean shit if big companies with a huge influence on the internet can just turn you away, alienating you from a huge audience of people.

Because of one thing, Google is an American private company and there's only that much the government can do to control them. To all Americans here, feel free to correct me on this one but the 1st Amendment says: 

Quote

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (Emphasis is mine)

It doesn't say anything about preventing private corporations from picking which is and which isn't allowed. 

 

42 minutes ago, MrDynamicMan said:

The day you make someone a martyr is the day you give them power. Now, this of us who really don't like nazis but like free speech are forced into a position where we have to defend their right to speak. 

I still think the best ammunition against the bigotry from Neo-nazis and white supremacists or any kind of extremist groups is not violence or censorship but education and more better speech. If they are exploiting the same free speech to further their nefarious agenda, then it is the good people's part to do the same and use the same free speech privileges to dissuade people from joining by coming up with a much better speech. 

 

But then if it comes to a point that people are physically harmed or calling for the incarceration or death of someone or a group of people, I think it's the time for Google or any other tech company to bring their big ban hammers since it's now a matter of public safety. 

 

 

[Memories4K]

11 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

In a true democracy where free speech is protected, google has as much right to deny it's services as the website in question has to voice their opinions.    In my mind the sheer existence of constitutionally protected free speech applies to everyone.  

 

I think the fact these guys are having a problem finding a domain host that will provide them services should be telling enough that society does not, on the whole, agree with their ideals.  

No yeah, i agree with that; the idea that nazism is somehow popularly accepted in broad society is false.
What i was really asking though is Google's rights as a business compared to ISPs, i'm not trying to undermine Google as a business but i think it's something healthy to talk about considering the talk of net neutrality.
Exactly where do we distinguish between the two.

[Memories4K]

12 minutes ago, hey_yo_ said:

I still think the best ammunition against the bigotry from Neo-nazis and white supremacists or any kind of extremist groups is not violence or censorship but education and more better speech.

 

I'd like to believe this but the commies have proven that higher education and "better speech" (Whether that means better clarity of speech or simply not "wrongthink") does nothing to bigotry and hatred but simply further articulate it.
I think empathy and sincerity might be more necessary, to be sincere and considerate might bridge the culture gap and allow people to be more understanding on all sides to each other's real concerns. I realize that would be asking for much though since sincerity would have you show some humility and nobody likes to put away their pride but it just goes back to my point that the problem might not be fixed by simply higher education and "better speech".

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Memories4K said:

No yeah, i agree with that; the idea that nazism is somehow popularly accepted in broad society is false.
What i was really asking though is Google's rights as a business compared to ISPs, i'm not trying to undermine Google as a business but i think it's something healthy to talk about considering the talk of net neutrality.
Exactly where do we distinguish between the two.

 

I think the difference lies in whether googles service is essential for accessing someone else's services.   That is, with an ISP all your traffic goes through them, you are reliant on them to not restrict access.    Google however is not an essential service,  There is technically nothing google can do to stop you accessing any service on the internet.  They can make it harder due to their sheer presence as a search engine, but that is not the same as stopping or preventing.  

 

From the other side (the website owner) If they are having trouble finding a company to host their website that is a different kettle of fish, there are no laws that I am aware of that make it compulsory for any company to offer a platform (be it a website, radio show, tv ad or poster service) to anyone who asks.    If we decide that web hosting should be made available to everyone then we would have to apply the same rules to tv stations and radio shows.    Society has a good way of self regulating the extremes.  I think most people would argue if you cannot find someone to host your website it is because the content is not conducive to societal acceptance at just about any level.

[captain_to_fire]

3 minutes ago, Memories4K said:

I'd like to believe this but the commies have proven that higher education and "better speech" (Whether that means better clarity of speech or simply not "wrongthink") does nothing to bigotry and hatred but simply further articulate it.

I'd like to fully respond to this but that would mean violating the community standards and earning a warning point so no, I'd like to maintain my profile with zero warning points. 

 

I think you forgot what I said at the rest of my post. 

26 minutes ago, hey_yo_ said:

But then if it comes to a point that people are physically harmed or calling for the incarceration or death of someone or a group of people, I think it's the time for Google or any other tech company to bring their big ban hammers since it's now a matter of public safety. 

I do believe that we as a species have the right to believe or disbelieve any notion at any given moment as long as it doesn't spill deleteriously on other people. In other words, whatever you do within the privacy of your own mind is up to you. 

 

15 minutes ago, Memories4K said:

it just goes back to my point that the problem might not be fixed by simply higher education and "better speech".

I disagree. Try reading a history book and you'll see that censorship doesn't work. It only amplifies ideas whether it's good or bad. Again, I can't give you examples without violating the community standards. 

[Master Disaster]

7 hours ago, Bcat00 said:

You know its one thing to let people believe what they like but its another matter when its a radical movement. They are drawing very close nazi/isis territory and i sure as heck wouldnt want it on the web or anywhere near me in real life.

There's a very easy solution to this problem, just like the real world the internet is a very large place and its very easy to avoid anything you don't want exposure too.

[ravenshrike]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

And why's that?   They are not providing a utility service.

In point of fact as a domain registrar they effectively are a utility. However that fact has jack all to do with net neutrality. It just means that the domain registry part of their business should be treated as a utility for purposes of discrimination.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, ravenshrike said:

In point of fact as a domain registrar they effectively are a utility. However that fact has jack all to do with net neutrality. It just means that the domain registry part of their business should be treated as a utility for purposes of discrimination.

Why though?  If you think domain services should be considered a utility then should TV stations be considered a utility? what about advertising companies?  the product is exactly the same, it is a platform to provide information.

[Trik'Stari]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Why though?  If you think domain services should be considered a utility then should TV stations be considered a utility? what about advertising companies?  the product is exactly the same, it is a platform to provide information.

The argument that internet should be a utility is nothing new.

 

 

Don't know if anyone else saw this.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/08/cloudflare-ceo-the-people-behind-the-daily-stormer-are-assholes/

 

"It's important for us to be neutral" and yet "It's important that what we did today did not set a precedent" and "let me be clear: this was an arbitrary decision"

 

A comment from that article asks "Will this stop them, or will it just make them fester more". When you victimize them and de-platform them, you're pushing them further to the extreme.