GoDaddy terminates hosting of Texas anti-abortion tip website | Hacker News Reader

GoDaddy terminates hosting of Texas anti-abortion tip website

reuters.com

37 pointsdjrogers41 comments

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28414361

I really despise when corporations choose to censor their customers and users. I don't care what the content is if it's technically legal.

If it matters at all, I am neutral about abortion.

The thing is other customers and potential customers do care.

I don't get it. GoDaddy has nothing to do with the content. They're not even a messager. One step further and it could be a a supermarket denying food to anti-abortion activists, because there are people not wanting to buy groceries at the same place.

I would go as far as saying that people concerned about GoDaddy providing services to anti-abortion groups don't even deserve a website. I work for for a SaaS, on the shop floor (luckily) and I'm offended that someone is intrested if someone wants to know who else is our client any more than the testimonials show.

And I'm pro-choice.

It's a bit queasy IMO. I really, really, really disliked it when the animal rights activists in Britain pushed the banks to cancel the accounts of some customers.

But in this case Godaddy had a ToS and the site is in clear violation. IMO most those ToSes and EULAs are dubious, but this particular case isn't. Arguing to restrict what a ToS or EULA can say would be a good thing, but supporting that argument with the poor mistreated texan lynch mob... no. Surely another case will come by with more sympathetic victims.

> I would go as far as saying that people concerned about GoDaddy providing services to anti-abortion groups don't even deserve a website. I work for for a SaaS, on the shop floor (luckily) and I'm offended that someone is intrested if someone wants to know who else is our client any more than the testimonials show.

You're exactly the type of person that GoDaddy needs to aplease. People who care what other people do/care/etc.

this is perfectly legal, as the website was less than 6 weeks old

What does being less than 6 weeks old have to do with anything?

He's making a joke. The law allows abortion at less than six weeks of pregnancy.

The abortion law in Texas applies to abortions after 6 weeks.

So it's a confusing joke, not a true statement.

Is it that confusing if you read the article? It mentions the six-week timetable. I don't think many people were taking it seriously.

jokes are often confusing if you're not hip to the premise

It is a joke about the anti-abortion law.

I believe that the whole Texas anti-abortion law is unfair. Nevertheless, undermining public discourse based on political preference is going to be always wrong.

Agreed. Obviously I won't be using GoDaddy. And I'm not a pro-lifer, I don't agree with the law.

As far as I’m aware, there’s no such thing as “public space” on the web.

Ultimately, data is always served from someone’s private server somewhere.

That doesn't mean you should have the right, if you are a large enough platform, to rule the place at your whims when the content being posted is legal.

There is a real argument that, in a more ideal world, YouTube, Facebook, WhatsApp, etc. would be viewed as infrastructure and regulated as such. Imagine if your power company refused to provide you power because they didn't like that you ran a gas-powered car plant; regardless of their ability to provide for you. Or if your telephone company refused to service you because they didn't like what you might tell your friends or that you were the head of a political party they didn't like.

Why though? Why is Facebook and Whatsapp infrastructure... You will not die if you don't use the internet. You might die without power or water. The problem is the same people that support these laws.. do not want the internet to be treated like public utilities.

Also I agree ISP and internet connections should be a public utility just like telephone. Even though we had that whole ATT monopoly.

But websites are not utilities at all. They are stores. Are we now saying Walmart cant kick people out for screaming crazy stuff in there stores?

Humanity has lived for thousands of years without power, you can technically live without it. Doesn't mean that it's not infrastructure and regulated as such.

As for screaming crazy stuff, that'd be Disorderly Conduct. However, Walmart shouldn't be able to kick out people for, say, a private conversation they disagree with.

>Portions of the website which allow people to submit anonymous tips on suspected abortions on Friday showed a GoDaddy notification saying the site had been locked down.

I wonder which part of the TOS this violates. They don't mention it whatsoever

Here's a potentially applicable term:

>[You must not use GoDaddy to] [v]iolate[] the privacy or publicity rights of another User or any other person or entity, or breach[] any duty of confidentiality that you owe to another User or any other person or entity. [emphasis added]

It is at least arguable this site infringes a woman's right to privacy when seeking medical treatment.

There's also the usual terms that give the service provider a very broad discretion to determine what content is or is not appropriate for their service.

That's what I figured- some sort of personal information violation. I wish they gave a specific clause with the message of termination, though.

Who is "they", your confirmation bias or the poor media sites you get your information from?

GoDaddy clearly stated:

"Violate a GoDaddy rule that says website operators may not "collect or harvest (or permit anyone else to collect or harvest) any User Content or any non-public or personally identifiable information about another user or any other person or entity without their express prior written consent." GoDaddy's terms of service also say that customers cannot use the web hosting platform in a way that "[v]iolates the privacy or publicity rights of another User or any other person or entity, or breaches any duty of confidentiality that you owe to another User or any other person or entity."

I'm referring to the Reuters news article. Also, is that quote from a GoDaddy press release or something? Or just quoted from the TOS? because that's my point, that when banning someone, they should include in the report which specific part they violated. This would certainly help accountability

This part, I assume:

"""GoDaddy expressly reserves the right to deny, cancel, terminate, suspend, lock, or modify access to (or control of) any Account or Services (including the right to cancel or transfer any domain name registration) for any reason (as determined by GoDaddy in its sole and absolute discretion)"""

Section 5, heading ii from Godaddy Legal Agreement:

"You will not collect or harvest (or permit anyone else to collect or harvest) any User Content (as defined below) or any non-public or personally identifiable information about another User or any other person or entity without their express prior written consent."

Later, in section 10:

"GoDaddy may remove any item of User Content (whether posted to a website hosted by GoDaddy or posted to this Site) and/or terminate a User’s access to this Site or the Services found at this Site for posting or publishing any material in violation of this Agreement, or for otherwise violating this Agreement (as determined by GoDaddy in its sole and absolute discretion), at any time and without prior notice. [...] GoDaddy may, in its sole and absolute discretion, remove and destroy any data and files stored by you on its servers."

https://www.godaddy.com/legal/agreements

It doesn't have to violate the TOS. It's a legal website, helping implement a new law, but GoDaddy doesn't like the law.

At what point can we admit TOSs are fairly capricious in enforcement?

Porn (providing it meets 2257 standards) is legal, yet it’s against the terms of many web services. Even though I consume porn, I still think it’s reasonable if operators decide they don’t want it on their platform.

>It's a legal website, helping implement a new law

Wrong. The law does not state citizens must track down anyone who has had an abortion.

But it states that they can, which makes the website legal. They aren't required to, but they are allowed to.

True, but you make it sound like a legal operation.

Edit: By legal, I guess you mean legally allowed. I thought you meant as in an official legal capacity

But ISPs are generally expected to work within the TOS. Otherwise the customer could expect to recover damages for malicious actions. If GoDaddy wants to add new terms they should give notice. Violating their own TOS is a breach of contract.

Every time something like this happens, Section 230 reform becomes a topic again.

If you like Section 230 as it is, don't test it.

> If you like Section 230 as it is, don't test it.

What do you mean?

Section 230 means GoDaddy isn't liable for hosting this site or a site by the Taliban.

Are you saying GoDaddy is testing 230? Or that if 230 is repealed there will be more actions like these from other hosting providers?

I'm saying that censoring political discourse using Section 230 is a sure-fire way to get politicians mad at you and start thinking about how to amend Section 230 so you can't do that ever again.

Using Section 230 for means like this is potentially very self-destructive and self-defeating.

Ah ok, definitely in agreement. Not a good move on their part.

They should try epik.com, I'm sure they'd be happy to have them.

That's exactly where they went.

Wow, and here I thought I was making a good joke. These people have no shame.

At least they're probably getting a better service than with GoDaddy!

I don't support restrictions on abortion for the same reason I don't support vaccine mandates - bodily autonomy is a fundamental human right that must be upheld. That said, infrastructure utilities like AWS, GoDaddy, and others are exerting their own political bias into their services. We really need new laws and new regulation to prevent this. We need to start treating people's political positions as a protected class across the board, and also recognize that existing fundamental rights like free speech cannot be exercised if giant companies censor others. Even if there are multiple companies on the market, their affinity to Silicon Valley means they carry the same political biases, and often act in unison when it comes to censorship and deplatforming - as we saw with bans of Donald Trump or Parler. And no I am not interested in building my own hosting service, and no I don't think private companies can do whatever they want just like private power utilities can't.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com