The difference is that they thought they were the "good guys" and that other, lower humans, were ruining mankind's gene pool. They pushed for separating those classes of people, and then to kill a portion of them since segregation/"concentration" camps weren't enough.

That's not at all equivalent to other types of discussions we are having today about the economy, the environment, and education.

I think you've lost the plot here. We're talking about who gets to decide what content gets to stay on the internet and what gets booted off.

I think you have: it's pretty fucking clear what information should and shouldn't need help to be distributed. These hosts of this site could throw their page up on a home computer right now and it would be widely accessible to whomever wanted to see it. Nobody's under any obligation to make it safe (SSL certs), convenient (domain registrars) or available (bombardment security), especially when it's something so abhorrent.

If you want to be a hateful little shit, go right ahead, but don't expect a helpful hand. That's the "plot" here, friend.

> it's pretty fucking clear what information should and shouldn't need help to be distributed

Unfortunately, no, it's not. And BTW, the CEO of CloudFlare agrees with me:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15034304

> If you want to be a hateful little shit

In my opinion that sort of language is inappropriate. Does that mean that if I were in a position to do so, I should be allowed to silence you?

I guess completely out of context your comment may mean something else to you. In the context of this thread it seems like you're saying that there are other "social revolutions" that could be squashed because of content restrictions that are defended based on this incident.

If you're just saying that some company could be controlled by a "Nazi" and they may restrict their services, I get that. I don't think it's a "slippery slope" type of argument though.

I'm saying that it's often hard to tell the difference between a positive social revolution and a repugnant one. Every social revolution is repugnant to someone, otherwise it wouldn't be a revolution. I am willing to defend your right to say things I find repugnant in order to preserve my right to say things you -- or more to the point, the CEO of my ISP -- may find repugnant.

Just for the record, I find the nazis and the neo-nazis repugnant. I'm a descendant of holocaust survivors, so seeing swastikas being paraded down the street in America hits very close to home for me. And I have no problem shutting down incitements to violence. But that's not what happened here. The Daily Stormer was taken off the air because of an alleged false claim that they made about their CDN. That is a very dangerous precedent.

Everybody always thinks they are the good guys - that's what ideologies are for.