Google and GoDaddy are not beholden to the constitution and are well within their rights to reject the Daily Stormer. White supremacy isn't a suspect class. It's perfectly legal for a business to discriminate against such views.
I think discussing Constitution protections from the government should include discussions on protections applying when the government allows the private sector to take over some of its work. If privatization reduces constitutional protections... that feels a bit like an exploit, not an intended feature.
Would you be ok if Comcast decided to disallow you from accessing sites they determine are offensive? Or filesharing? Or porn? Even if it is their right to do so, it'd make me uncomfortable.
Most of the HN crowd, including myself, are big fans of a lot of programs that are easily seen as socialist such as universal healthcare or universal income.
I know the "slippery slope" trope seems tired at times, but this might be a case where it's warranted.
I actually respect companies and organizations that uphold the rights of people they disagree with, such as the ACLU and Cloudflare. They get a lot of flak for that (ACLU for defending neo-nazi rights to protest, cloudflare for protecting websites for pirates, hackers, radicals, etc).
As an individual that leans very left, my instinct is to say "Alright Google and GoDaddy! Screw those Nazis!" but the same leftist freedom-loving side of me says "I would hate it if a controversial site I ran was shut down because it had an unpopular opinion"
This is why instead of names we should use verifiable actions IMHO. Are you calling for acts of violence against people of another race y/n? Are you attacking and injuring people y/n? Are you destroying public or private property and entering into acts of vandalism y/n? Are you telling people they are worth less because of some attribute they can't control like skin color, sexual orientation, etc y/n?
We can pretty much all agree on this stuff. It just gets problematic when you start throwing labels around and basing policy of off that, because everyone has a different idea of what some label means. For instance, Nazis were a socialist workers party who preached a large and benevolent social welfare program, but many socialists or social democrats would be offended if we called them Nazis even though there is much overlap in many of their particular policies. The same is true of conservatives who could also be broadly labeled as Nazis since they may tend to be more nationalist as were the Nazis.
Again its just a flawed way of thinking about the issues IMHO.
Nazis were a socialist workers party who preached a large and benevolent social welfare program
That must be the understatement of the year. You're either trying to rewrite history or are very uninformed. The Nazis conspired to overthrow the government long before they gained any widespread popularity, that's why Hitler rightly went to prison. The SA was roaming the streets, beating up and even killing Jews and political opponents. They were very dangerous and spread terror wherever they showed up.
Of course, socialists and social democrats would be offended to be called Nazis. They literally went to prisons and Concentration Camps because of their socialist views.
I agree. I don't see where I was claiming anywhere that if someone openly proclaims to be something, we shouldn't take them at their word for it. My issue is mainly with people being labeled as something when they are not themselves claiming to be that thing.
> That must be the understatement of the year. You're either trying to rewrite history or are very uninformed.
I don't see how insulting me adds anything here. I got my undergraduate in German Studies and have lived in Germany my entire adult life. I suppose I could have been clearer in my statement in that the Nazi party was only in part built on the principles of a large social welfare state [1]. I thought that was clear since I also mentioned the very nationalistic [1] part of the Nazi party.
Anyway, I don't really know what you're claiming other than general agitation at a claim I didn't make. I pretty much agree with you.
1. https://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapbook/25Points.html
Google and Facebook are not common carriers, so they are under no obligation to be content-neutral. (If you're arguing that they should be common carriers, that's a perfectly fruitful discussion to have.)
Oklahoma City
Dylann Roof
The asshole who drove his car into a group of counterprotestors
ISPs can and should be regulated... in fact they should pass a law... maybe call it net neutrality.
That is where we should draw the line, beginning and end of story. If google deems a site offensive and doesn't want to return it in search listings, I'll find another search engine. I don't use facebook and couldn't care less what they do or don't display. If it's vital to you, pick a different social network.
ISPs on the other hand are a utility and should be treated as such. The DOT doesn't get to tell me which stores I can visit before I pull onto the highway. My ISP shouldn't have any right to tell me which websites I can visit either.
Domain registrars look more like utilities, e.g. ISPs, than applications, e.g. Google.
Well-intentioned question: where do you draw the line? Where does it start or end? Businesses that have used this same logic to discriminate against LGBT patrons based on the owners' religious beliefs have had a very difficult time selling this same spiel.
Edit: Scrolling down, I can see this same question asked multiple times. My assessment is that, it's a very difficult thing to do and we must admit our biases even as we make our voices heard.
"However vile and despicable the views expressed on the site, they have a constitutional right to it"
They have a constitutional right to express those views. They do not have a constitutional right to express those views on a GoDaddy-hosted domain.