Hacker News Reader

Comment by jstanley | Hacker News Reader

So was it hosted on Namecheap or were they just the domain registrar?

If they were just the domain registrar I think this is a dangerous precedent. If anything, it is just going to cause people to sympathise with the Daily Stormer, which is presumably the opposite of the intended effect.

EDIT: For anyone who wants to read their site, I think this is it: (onion.casa is a Tor gateway) https://dstormer6em3i4km.onion.casa/

From having a browse around, the site appears to be basically a joke. It's pretty distasteful but I personally don't think it warrants being taken down.

View on HN

The domain registrar aspect of it is what is concerning about this, I think. Sites are thrown off hosts all the time, but there's generally someone out there willing to do hosting. Domain registrars are a different story, I think. Not only have they until recently not been political territory (opening up new territory for the Culture Wars is always a concerning thing IMHO), but the costs to starting up one's own domain registrar are quite high. I am legitimately curious if the choices of registrars here are because the owner of the Stormer knows he'll get publicity by being thrown off them, or because there actually aren't options for them.

A lot of the "First Amendment" vs "private companies aren't obligated to provide service" arguments could be sidestepped by the acknowledgment that we do have a history of certain companies becoming public utilities. Would it be acceptable (or even legal) for a phone company to deny phone service to Nazis? Could an electric company turn off power to the homes of KKK members because of their membership? Does the water company have a right to cut off the tap to Richard Spencer's house/offices because they don't want to quench hate's thirst? Maybe such things should or shouldn't apply to the world of the Internet, but I do wish that a lot of the arguments didn't assume that we live in some sort of anarcho-capitalist society of purely voluntary contracts.

> Not only have they until recently not been political territory ...

Sure they have. Many domains have been revoked for association with "piracy". For example, a famous hip-hop fan site, whose name I forget now. It took them years to get unblocked. But I do agree that the Culture Wars aspect is troubling.

It wasn't a joke when the editor was in Charlottesville last weekend. He speaks on camera in the Vice video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P54sP0Nlngg

Vice... Read their description, they toss in "two police officers dead" as as if somehow that was related to the events.

I don't understand. Do you have a complaint about the journalistic integrity of Vice? Are you suggesting that the Daily Stormer editor was coerced into speaking in the video or that his words were taken out of context?

The police officers were flying the surveillance helicopter over the crowds downtown when their helicopter crashed, so I'd agree with Vice that their deaths are related to the events.

Vice is just trying to add more sensationalism to the event. Which in of itself is not necessary. So why they had to mention it is beyond me.

This is more just blaming the media for everything. How is reporting on a police helicopter crash related to the event not newsworthy? Trump himself tweeted about it, and by the way, we still haven't heard anything on the cause.

Let's focus our upset feelings on the things that actually matter, like neo-Nazis in our streets, rather than on nit-picking journalistic investigations into them.

Because they conflate the two. I've seen it in so many headlines regarding this event. It's not just the one casualty due to the car incident, they then go on and word it such that you'd think two police men died as a direct result of the protests.

It's way worse than a bunch of people walking around espousing racist views. Real-time subtle manipulation of large amounts of individuals is what actually matters. Democracy/society breaks down when you have large-scale brainwashing and suppression of dissenting opinions/views past a certain tipping point. Ironically, I'd argue that's a large component of how the Nazis in Germany rose to power.

probably the former, since the article says "hosting", and the current whois information says it's still registered with google.

The article does say "hosting", but also says it used to be hosted with "Google Domains" and "a Russian Registrar", which makes no sense.

Seems likely that the author of the article doesn't understand the difference.

> If anything, it is just going to cause people to sympathise with the Daily Stormer

I think that people who are willing to sympathize with neo-Nazis because a domain registrar refused to process their registration should be considered as just a subset of "Nazi sympathizers," and their views treated accordingly.

> From having a browse around, the site appears to be basically a joke. It's pretty distasteful but I personally don't think it warrants being taken down.

The site certainly presents itself as a joke to avoid substantive criticism or engagement with the viewpoints it's promoting from detractors. But, say, altright.com takes them seriously, and lists them alongside clearly-not-joking Neo-Nazi organization Identity Evropa:

https://altright.com/2017/08/05/the-unite-the-right-rally-is...

The Daily Stormer has been promoting the event heavily and it looks like they are going to bring a lot of young new cadres to the rally. Identity Evropa will be there as well as several Southern Nationalist groups. There will be no Alt-Lite co-rally, it will be just us, the proverbial and literal White Guard out there defending the statue of General Lee. This is a good development. They are quickly becoming irrelevant and losing their street presence as we continue to grow and take up space.

No one knows how many of us will show up there just yet. A conservative estimate would put us at about 500, although if the Daily Stormer book clubs, frog twitter, and affiliated groups come through, we can top 1000.

They mention themselves that 4chan was the place where ironic appreciation of Hitler grew into earnest appreciation of Hitler:

https://dstormer6em3i4km.onion.casa/a-normies-guide-to-the-a...

Anti-Semitic and racist jokes had been a key feature of /b/, but on /pol/ the sentiments behind the jokes slowly became serious, as people realized they were based on fact. /pol/ became a haven for virulent anti-Semites and aggressive racists, and tone of the Alt-Right is drawn directly from these roots on 4chan.

On 4chan, the Jewish problem was analyzed by news junkies and history buffs, feminism was deconstructred by sexually frustrated young men, and race was considered based on the actual data on the issue. The rehabilitation of Adolf Hitler and the NSDAP largely took place on 4chan.

[...] This made promoting the right-wing agenda not only meaningful, but also extremely fun. The Alt-Right carries with it that spirit of fun.

So, sure, maybe they are a distasteful joke. They are also earnestly advocating Hitler's ideology and Nazi ideology by name. The joke is a front, to push the Overton window far enough in their direction that the non-joking version of their ideology becomes tenable.

> I think that people who are willing to sympathize with neo-Nazis because a domain registrar refused to process their registration should be considered as just a subset of "Nazi sympathizers," and their views treated accordingly.

And there it is. If you disagree with me, you're a Nazi (subset). Predictable.

I did not say that. I said, if you're sympathize with Nazis, you're a Nazi sympathizer.

I think you can perfectly well disagree with Namecheap's decision without being a Nazi sympathizer (let alone a Nazi, which I accused nobody of being other than The Daily Stormer, who claim alignment with NSDAP policy). That is not what I was replying to. I was replying to the specific claim that people will sympathize with Nazis because of Namecheap's action.

The only predictable thing here is your strawman response, and even so, I would have hoped we'd have a higher quality of discourse on HN.

> I did not say that.

> I said, if you're sympathize with Nazis, you're a Nazi sympathizer.

If a human is wounded, I will render aid. This has nothing to do with ideological sympathy. There can be, and are, other motives. Making blanket statements, like you continue to make, are irresponsible, at best.

> The only predictable thing here is your strawman response,

It's not a strawman to point out your conceptual failings. Good luck with whatever.

I would sympathize with them on this issue. This is actually the second time this week I have been called a Nazi sympathizer essentially for believing everyone, including Nazis, should be able to air their views in such a way that interested people can hear them. (i.e., they don't have the right to spam everyone, but they shouldn't be blacklisted from businesses otherwise open to everyone just because of the content of their speech).

Being unironically called a "Nazi sympathizer" is by far the most chilling thing to me that has happened of all the political events that have occurred in the last few years. It is also sad that I have to add a disclaimer that I have voted Democrat in the last decade of elections, am not a bigot, etc, etc, (not that someone using this sort of language would believe me).

Do people who say these sorts of things not realize the massive irony of accusing people who defend basic rights of a generally detested group of being "Nazi sympathizers"?

I should have quoted more of the above statement:

> If anything, it is just going to cause people to sympathise with the Daily Stormer, which is presumably the opposite of the intended effect.

There are two different things you can sympathize with here: the merits of the Daily Stormer's position / ideology, and their desire to have a platform.

The domain registrar is shutting them down because they don't agree with the merits of their ideology. I am reading the criticism above as saying, "If the domain registrar shuts them down, more people will be sympathetic to their ideology, which is counterproductive." I think it is fair to label people inclined to sympathy with Nazi ideas as Nazi sympathizers.

I suppose it could be an argument that the domain registrar's action will cause people to be sympathetic to the fact that they should have a domain name, but that makes less sense to me.

> I think it is fair to label people inclined to sympathy with Nazi ideas as Nazi sympathizers.

OK, fair enough, but that's not what you originally said, nor is it what people are doing when they throw that term at me. They're (sometimes intentionally) conflating advocacy of free speech for repugnant ideas with advocacy of those ideas themselves. But I appreciate your openness to try to see my position.

I certainly have no sympathy for Nazis. But the prospect of an authoritarian Internet is indeed chilling. And that's why we need uncensorable overlay networks and such.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com