Always good to keep the following quote often attributed to Voltaire in mind : "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
There is a challenge in isolating extremists while not isolating (and, indeed, productively engaging) the communities from which members are radicalized, and quite often brute-force efforts to isolate extremists (especially ones keying on race, nationality, and religion) end up isolating the feeder communities with the extremists, which is about the worst possible outcome.
Honestly this is a terrible precedent they have here. I am surprised they are doing this (if true and hence why I questioned the entire story) because it puts them at a disadvantage in future cases as far as 'why didn't you stop xyz domain registration that is now responsible for my child's death after I wrote to you and put you on notice'.
These Nazis got kicked off one registrar and decided to make it Google's problem.
Companies have every right to choose who they do business with.
There are plenty of registrars out there that have no issues with hate speech. This is just a PR exercise for the Nazis.
Nowadays hate speech is a euphamism for any idea or opinion someone doesn't like, so the term hate speech has lost its meaning. It now means using gender pronouns to refer to people, using gendered job names, saying that men and women are born with different brains, saying that there's only 2 genders, saying that feminism is cancer, saying there's a link between islam and terrorism, saying that black people underachieve in society due to genetics instead of the evil racist oppressive white male - and much more.
>no one can make a unanimous conclusion for what hate speech is
Would it be a "unanimous" conclusion if it were a conclusion drawn by a singular person or entity?
>It now means using gender pronouns to refer to people
Do you have an example of this being identified as hate speech?
Which singular person or entity should be responsible for determining what "hate speech" is? According to SJWiki I am a neurosexist for believing that men and women have different brains and that gender is not a social construct. Should SJWiki be trusted? According to the ADL, Gavin McInnes and Mike Cernovich are hate preachers. Should the ADL be trusted?
> Do you have an example of this being identified as hate speech?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMl4kIxw-jo
Also it's a slippery slope because once the "hate speech" clampdown happens, we'll then be punished for microaggressions, so even if you're not a racist, you'll be seen as racist for asking what race or ethnicity someone is?
Please notice that the quote is not "I disapprove of what you say, but I'll offer you my house for you to say it".
Actually, you can deny anyone except protected categories.
> Can a doctor deny to treat them if they end up in his office for serious injuries?
Yes, the doctor chooses not to treat patients with the illness or injury you suffer from.
> What if all registrars deny them, is it morally right to effectively erase them from the internet for simply expressing their thoughts?
Nobody is being erased from the internet. Also, they can open their own registrar system.
So no, there's no obligation for Google, or any other registrar, to host their information.
And a hospital might fire a doctor for refusing to treat you.
Also, isn't this Google/GoDaddy expressing THEIR speech by removing users who violate their TOS? Remember, GoDaddy was ok with hosting the site until an article defaming the woman who died on Saturday started making the rounds.