Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Net neutrality group fights ban of neo-Nazi internet site

  1. #1

    Net neutrality group fights ban of neo-Nazi internet site

    Net neutrality group fights ban of neo-Nazi internet site


    https://www.rt.com/usa/400190-net-ne...-supremacists/

    The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has spoken out against the banning of the neo-Nazi website Daily Stormer, after back-end web infrastructure companies like GoDaddy and Google cut services to the site for political reasons.
    Silencing one group could lead to the silencing of others whose opinions companies don’t agree with, the EFF warned, adding that this kind of corporate overreach was dangerous.

    “Protecting free speech is not something we do because we agree with all of the speech that gets protected. We do it because we believe that no one – not the government and not private commercial enterprise – should decide who gets to speak and who doesn’t,” EFF argued in a blog post titled "Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Freedom of Expression" on Thursday.

    “Any tactic used now to silence neo-Nazis will soon be used against others, including people whose opinions we agree with."


    "Those on the left face calls to characterize the Black Lives matter movement as a hate group. In the Civil Rights era, cases that formed the basis of today’s protections of freedom of speech, the NAACP’s voice was the one attacked,” EFF wrote.

    The EFF defends the right of anyone to choose what speech they provide online, as it is protected under the First Amendment of the US Constitution, the Foundation said.

    Their response comes after the Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi site, reported favorably about the death of a counter-protester during the weekend's violence in Charlottesville. GoDaddy, a domain name host, told the site’s owners they had 24 hours to leave their service.

    Daily Stormer subsequently moved to Google’s domain management service, but within hours, Google announced that it too was rejecting them as a customer. It also placed the dailystormer.com domain on “Client Hold,” preventing the website’s owner from activating, using or moving the domain to another service.

    Cloudflare, whose services are used to protect a site from denial-of-service attacks (DDoS), also reversed its long-held policy to remain content-neutral and dropped the Daily Stormer as a customer.

    “This was my decision. This is not Cloudflare’s general policy now, going forward,” CEO Matthew Prince told Gizmodo.

    In an email Prince sent to staffers, he explained that he “woke up this morning in a bad mood and decided to kick them off the internet… it was a decision I could make because I’m the CEO of a major Internet infrastructure company. Having made that decision we now need to talk about why it is so dangerous. No one should have that power.”

    What’s new and different about these latest actions is that its not been carried out by social media providers, like Twitter and Facebook, but rather the companies that serve as the backbone of the Internet, as the register of website names and services.

    “The domain hosting is a relatively rarely focused-on chokepoint for political pressure,” Eric Goldman, law professor at Santa Clara University told Slate.”Turning on or off content at that level is much deeper into the infrastructure layer than we’re used to seeing.”

    The EFF said that what GoDaddy, Google and Cloudflare did was “dangerous” because internet intermediaries, especially those with few competitors, “control so much online speech, the consequences of their decisions have far-reaching impacts on speech around the world.”

    It said the domain name system is enabled by an often-fragile consensus among many systems and operators, and using that system to “edit speech, based on potentially conflicting opinions about what can be spoken on the internet, risks shattering that consensus.”

    It is problematic when those decisions are being made with little oversight or transparency, the EFF said.

    “If entities that run the domain name system, started choosing who could access or add to them based on political considerations, we might well face a world where every government and powerful body would see itself as an equal or more legitimate invoker of that power.”

    According to Slate, groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League have been pushing various web providers to cut off services to openly racist and anti-Semitic sites for months. And after Charlottesville, they got their first breakthrough.

    Crowdfunding site GoFundMe has raised thousands of dollars to help pay for medical expenses of the Charlottesville victims, but has since removed several campaigns to raise funds for the legal fees for James A. Fields, the man of accused of killing Heather Heyer and injuring 19 others, stating those campaigns violated the company’s terms of service.

    PayPal also made the decision to ban "hate groups" from raising money using its services.

    Twitter suspended accounts related to Daily Stormer and Facebook reportedly removed eight pages.

    The hacktivist group Anonymous announced Tuesday they were going after those aligned with white supremacist groups, and said it hacked the site when Daily Stormer briefly set up with a Russian-based domain name.

    Meanwhile, Word Press stopped hosting bloodandsoil.com, the website of a fascist group in which Fields claimed membership.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    ....in before NAZI sympathizers demand that businesses be forced to serve people they don't want to serve.

  4. #3

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    ....in before NAZI sympathizers demand that businesses be forced to serve people they don't want to serve.
    Morally they shouldnt have to unless domain registration is a public utility. But legally they do. If a christian baker is forced to bake gay wedding cakes then they should be required to host the domain. Apply the law equally.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by specsaregood View Post
    Morally they shouldnt have to unless domain registration is a public utility. But legally they do. If a christian baker is forced to bake gay wedding cakes then they should be required to host the domain. Apply the law equally.
    Slavery loves company?

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Slavery loves company?
    It must have gone over your head. I'm not surprised.

  8. #7
    Ideally, a provider should be able to deny service to anyone they want. The reality is different.

    The question is at what level is that applied? Can a person be forced to work (provide service) for some employer that they don't want to work for? Should a business be forced to work for someone they don't want to?

    Then there is the question of monopoly and oligopoly. What if the only available provider of food decides they don't want to sell food to a person? When there are many options, the ideal of "we reserve the right to refuse service" can function. When all options are closed, then perhaps the real issue is monopoly, and not who serves who.

    Coincidentally, the move of internet domain name control (ICANN) from the US to an international group is in it's final stages. Will it get blocked at the last minute?
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    Proponent of real science.
    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by specsaregood View Post
    It must have gone over your head. I'm not surprised.
    That must be it...



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.


Similar Threads

  1. Father of the internet appaluds net neutrality rules, which keep the internet free...
    By Dionysus in forum Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-21-2009, 02:46 PM
  2. For those against Internet neutrality
    By freelance in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-10-2008, 11:09 AM
  3. Internet NEUTRALITY is VERY BAD
    By ElectRonPaul2008 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 77
    Last Post: 02-04-2008, 11:04 AM
  4. Internet NEUTRALITY is VERY BAD
    By ElectRonPaul2008 in forum New Hampshire
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-08-2008, 08:30 PM
  5. Issue: Internet: Web 2.0 and net neutrality
    By winston84 in forum Ron Paul: On the Issues
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-02-2007, 10:24 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •