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.
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 Many domains have been revoked for association with "piracy".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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[...] 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.
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"?
> 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.
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.
And there it is. If you disagree with me, you're a Nazi (subset). Predictable.
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 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.
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.