> I mean we complain when China does it, how is this fundamentally different?

Because a private company declining to participate in the hosting of somebody's speech is a hell of a distance from the government mandating blocking said speech? How is this even a serious question?

Random House probably isn't interested in publishing a neo-nazi racial superiority manifesto, either. That's neither a free speech issue nor "tantamount to Chinese censorship".

Undesirable speech removed from the internet via multiple registrars refusing to host DNS, vs undesirable speech removed from the internet via Chinese firewall has the same result: undesirable speech removed from the internet. That's the fundamental issue. That is not different.

Mandating that Google host this speech would constitute compelled speech, and violate the first amendment. Ironically, what you seem to desire here is something much more in line with China's conception of constrained freedom.

I desire anyone the ability to say anything on the internet without being squelched. I don't see how that is the same. If private companies want play that game, it's time to take the internet out of their hands.

The solution to that problem is to have a federalized registrar that will allow anyone to register anything and is required to uphold free speech laws as they apply to the internet.

> You aren't allowed to respond by gluing someone's mouth shut.

Refusing to actively collaborate in spreading someone else's viewpoint isn't gluing their mouth shut.

Now, if you want to argue that domain registration should be a public utility and not a private interaction where the service providers freedom of speech and association is protected, that's perhaps a reasonable argument. But that's not the status quo.

I'd rather argue for neither. Name-to-number resolution is too much of a strategic choke point to allow anyone to have too great a degree of control over it.

But in the system we have now, domain registrars and DNS providers should not be engaging in viewpoint-based discrimination against the domain owner, or in content-based discrimination against anything they may have on their servers.

I can certainly condone web hosting service companies embargoing troublesome customers, but anything closer to infrastructure than that should not be cut off for any reasons other than failure to pay the bills.

I know it's not the status quo, but if we cheer this, we are cheering the death of free and public internet. Careful what you wish for.

> If we cheer this, we are cheering the death of free and public internet.

I don't think it is that simple. ISIS does just fine on the web, I'm sure Neo Nazis will do just fine as well. But that's no reason why the IT giants of the planet should aid and abet them.

But the Internet is neither free nor public... (?)

If we cheer this, we cheer that DNS is a flawed system. Which I think we already know from Comcast injecting ads and datacap banners in pages.

Television stations, radio stations and newspapers all decide which editorials to air or stories to cover. There's no requirement that they provide every organization equal time to present whatever they think might be valuable.

Perhaps if DNS service was regulated as a utility, or if Google was an arm of a state or federal government, there might be something to your argument.

Anyone can start and distribute a newspaper. Not everyone can broadcast on a spectrum (there are technical reasons to now allow that). If you think of a website as a newspaper, and there are similarities, then this in effect is a private entity preventing someone from publishing and distributing a newspaper.

In the same way that anyone can start a newspaper, anyone can also start a website. In the same way that someone needs to sell the newspaper vital supplies like paper and ink, so to do websites need to have network providers and web servers.

If you think that a pro-Nazi newspaper would have no problem setting up shop, you are sorely mistaken. They will have the same problems as this website and people of conscience will refuse to have them as clients. This website, as would those newspapers, will need to find suppliers sympathetic to their views.

That few people are sympathetic to their views, in my opinion, is the market at work.

Anyone can also set up their own DNS server for people to use.

Not top level.

Users would be free to add the DNS server to their systems.

That's what I've been thinking. Maybe Namecoin (.bit) should be taken up by all "Free speech extremists", regardless of which side they are advocating. By Free speech extremists I mean people who agree that Nazi sites should have a registrar, regardless whether you agree with the Nazis or not.

It's troubling when advocating for universal political free speech is considered extreme.

Is it really that hard for people to understand that the first amendment only applies to the federal government?

Not to mention that the Internet is a global network with 200+ speech laws.

>Is it really that hard for people to understand that the first amendment only applies to the federal government?

That's the standard fallback of authoritarians. The law says the government can't ban speech, but the spirit of free speech, particularly on something like the internet, should be protected.

The internet is much larger than America. Why would American law be internet law?

Both are American entities.

The operator lives in Nigeria

taking the above as a starting point...

> If private companies have the abilities to squelch speech from the public internet, that is a very bad thing.

the whole point of the net neutrality folks is ensuring that ISPs can't keep them from accessing whatever sites they want, isn't it?

if it is in some sense OK for google to refuse these domain registrations, is it also OK for google (and then comcast, etc etc) to refuse to carry the packets for these sites?

It would be wrong for Comcast to drop packets for specific websites, if Net Neutrality was still a thing. Google is a private company and can refuse to service customers.

It is not OK in either sense, IMO.

They're free to promote and advertise their ip address. DNS is a non-essential convenience.

That's baloney. Try to run a website by an IP and see how far you get.

Sure you can - you type it in just like text, works great - I'm sure other terrorist organisations like ISIS do the same thing

So how much traffic would Google.com lose if they switched from DNS to just an IP? None?

If they choose to base themselves on extremist idealogy, it is their problem to figure out how to sustain themselves let alone craft its own monetization plan!

One perspective is that Google runs their own DNS that many people and services use as a convenience.

Also, as I get chastised for using Bing (because they pay me) and much of their traffic comes from browser defaults, it's arguable that if they stopped hosting on google.com it may not be that negative of an impact.

To the same degree, note that Amazon CHOOSES not to list their more specific apps in the google store and force customers to download THEIR store and change their phone permissions.

Sounds specifically like a problem of terrorists organizations and their marketing departments.

Except you are not glued. Buy your own host, having a public IP, simple as that.

> If private companies have the abilities to squelch speech from the public internet

Nobody is doing that.

Nobody is mandated to give you a medium for your speech. Go on the corner and scream all you want.

You weaken your own rights by choosing to interpret "speech" literally instead of as participation in public communications and discourse, which increasingly occurs over channels that do not require everyone to be within shouting distance of each other. Freedom of the press now extends further than a literal ink-on-paper printing press, to digital publication on an http server.

Delisting a domain from the DNS is metaphorically equivalent to raiding the premises of a newspaper publisher and ripping the banner off the front page of each printed copy, while leaving the remainder intact, so that anyone attempting to read the latest copy of that paper would not be able to find one, even if they were standing on a stack of them. It is backdoor censorship, by attacking people's name-based associations.

> Delisting a domain from the DNS is metaphorically equivalent to raiding the premises of a newspaper publisher and ripping the banner off the front page of each printed copy, while leaving the remainder intact, so that anyone attempting to read the latest copy of that paper would not be able to find one, even if they were standing on a stack of them. It is backdoor censorship, by attacking people's name-based associations.

No, it isn't. It is merely saying that you won't take an entry in your copy of the phone book, but you're free to petition the other issuers of phone books and you're free to create your own phone book.

Which kicks the can down the road to the issuer of the phone book book, which is not obligated to list any particular phone book in it, including the one you created yourself, because no one else would list your number in theirs.

Do you think it acceptable for casual users of the phone network to keep their own list of phone books that include self-published phone books that the major phone book book publishers won't list?

> Do you think it acceptable for casual users of the phone network to keep their own list of phone books that include self-published phone books that the major phone book book publishers won't list?

I didn't really get your point, too many books in it. Care to rephrase it, please?

> You weaken your own rights by choosing to interpret "speech" literally instead of as participation in public communications and discourse, which increasingly occurs over channels that do not require everyone to be within shouting distance of each other.

Are you implying that every online community and service should be forced to accept absolute freedom of speech?

Porn is speech, should YT and Fb be forced to host porn?

It's a little different with domain registrars, particularly when two of the biggest ones blocked a domain from registering. A power the US government gave them. Also, no one is saying "force," you are injecting that as a straw man. Just because people think free speech is something worth fighting for rather than actively fighting against because sometimes it is distasteful, doesn't mean we want the government to force anything.

Also, Google and GoDaddy sure forced Stormwhatever to not be accessible through their domain name. Again, using power given to them by the US government.

Do you believe you are actively fighting against the freedom of this group to speak? Do you see where some people would think you are? Do you think that will come back to bite you in the future?

> A power the US government gave them.

With no requirements that they should not refuse service to anyone.

> Also, no one is saying "force."

Then what are you saying? Should Google be "xxxxx" to accept Stormwhatever? What is "xxxxx"? Honest question, what are you proposing?

> Again, using power given to them by the US government.

And doing so per the conditions specified by the US government.

First Amendment lawyer Ken White describes the Daily Stormer as a "sewer of humanity." In a statement to Ars, he argued that the article about Heyer "is repulsive, and arguably advocates for killing people in general, but it's not actionable incitement under the law. GoDaddy, of course, can kick Nazis off its platform as it likes, though."

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/08/godaddy-blacklis...

That's a good question, thanks for keeping the gray cells going.

So the internet was created with public funds; you and I paid for it. The registrars were then privatized, which I don't particularly have a problem with, but since the internet was created with public funds, it should allow the freedoms the government gives us.

Like I said, I'm not suggesting Google be forced to do it, but the US government should run a "public option" registrar that protects the freedom of speech / expression that putting up a website provides. If the government feels like they should ban a website, allow it to go through the court system and see if they agree. With privatization, we don't have the court system to go through (well we do, but since it's a private company, courts probably won't hear it.) That would be a good solution for me. Let Google keep their censoring and data collection if they want.

> So the internet was created with public funds; you and I paid for it.

Very little of the current infrastructure was built with public funds Most of the hundreds of billions of dollars in infrastructure around the world come from companies, some government owned, some private.

> The registrars were then privatized

Actually, they weren't. They never existed in a public fashion. You're mixing up registry and registrar.

Today, it isn't a monopoly, so anyone can create their own registrar if they want. So if they don't find a registrar wanting to do business with them, they can spend a few thousand $ and create their own.

On the "government-run neutral registrar", I'm not sure if that's a good solution. I've rarely ever seen a government keep something neutral...

I'm not Clubber, but I think Google should choose, by their own volition, to accept Daily Stormer in order to promote freedom of speech and an open internet. In the same way sense that the rich "should" donate to charity even if there isn't necessarily a legal or moral obligation to. They should do it because the world is a better place with the open exchange of ideas.

I am implying that the internet is now communications infrastructure, and should therefore be equally open to all comers.

Domain registration and DNS are [nearly] essential now, in the same way that street signs are essential for a road network. If your city council decides to rip out the street sign that labeled the street you live on, such that visitors could not easily locate your house, and mail would not be delivered in a timely or reliable fashion to your mailbox, do you think you might have grounds to complain?

Assigning a street name and postal address to your lot is not the same as building a house on it.

So not "every online community" should be barred from censorship on their own properties, but if you're running a core information service, you're danged skippy that censorship is not okay.

If Cthulhu comes up to your desk chewing on half of a Dagonite cultist, you accept its business, and charge it exactly the same fee per month as you just charged smiling baby Jesus holding two cute kittens for his domain registration. The amount of editorial control you may exercise is inversely proportional to your power to influence the entire Internet. Since domain registration is right there at the center and has such great power, you do not get to color the whole Internet with your own personal values.

> So not "every online community" should be barred from censorship on their own properties, but if you're running a core information service, you're danged skippy that censorship is not okay.

Google or GoDaddy aren't running the DNS system, or even street signs.

They are running a phone book service, which is also run by many other companies, each under their own ToS. They can reject service to anyone (well, except protected classes).

Root level domains are part of DNS. You have to go through a registrar to get listed in a root level domain (.com, .net, etc). So yes, if they block you from registering in a top level domain and you don't have an alternative, you are blocked from DNS, at least the public one.

But there in lies the problem. Private companies don't want the stink of Stormwhatever associated with their name in the press and are more likely to banstick them because profit.

I think the best solution is a public option registrar.

Anyone on board with the whole "The tech companies are too big" thing yet?

no?

okay I'll keep popping up every once in a while to ask.

Been on that train for a while. Ever since Twitter banned Milo, who I'd never heard of until reading a news article about him being banned, the internet in the USA is slowly resembling the internet I experience in China whenever I visit the mainland. And the slippery slope is greased with "but muh private companies" even as these private companies become more and more monopolistic and indistinguishable.

Because it's subject to market forces and not the government?