Google has every right morally and legally to not wish to provide a platform for hate speech.
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?