Neo-nazi group moves to 'dark web' after domain registration revoked
reuters.com
reuters.com
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.
I would be pretty happy to be mistaken.
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?
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?
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.
“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.
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?
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.
If this is how it works, it is broken. Require an injunction from a court of law, perhaps? It's broken. Please fix 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Do that.
This is not okay, even if Nazis suck.
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.
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.
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)
I would so love to be misunderstanding.
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.
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?
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.)
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.
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.
This is a bit disingenuous, the rule was established well beforehand. It's not like they made it up for this specific instance.
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.
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?
I have no idea where the registrant lives, however.
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?
However, it may be that they have a different definition for revoked than I have. That would make me happy.
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.
Neo-Nazis only start with brandishing flags and tiki torches. The end goal is ethnic cleansing. Literally.
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.
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.
Soon world governments will get in on this, if they haven't already.
I suspect they'll get some new (normal) domains and be operating like normal within a week as the media fervor dies down.
I don't think this is a positive trend. Forcing your enemies underground simply means you have less insight into their operations, imo.
New neo nazi's seem alot more normal looking and young (based on charlotteville), which is probably more worrying for a different reason.
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".
"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...."
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...
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.
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.
Refusing to listen would mean not visiting their website. Covering them up would mean driving them to the dark web.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
All of it is just deflection.