This is probably why...

"In 2005, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration ruled that registrants of .us domains may not secure private domain name registration via anonymizing proxies, and that their contact information must be made public." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.us

This is the same reason their .is domain was yanked.

https://grapevine.is/news/2017/09/29/dailystormer-likely-los...

This might also be interesting for some people: a full timeline of news and bannings of the daily stormer: https://time.graphics/line/3812

Why does that matter? It's no secret who runs the site.

Founder is trying to avoid being served papers in a lawsuit- if he gives up his actual current residency he makes it easier to get served:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/08/lawsuit-against-...

Weev (Stormer's CTO, I guess) claims that SPLC is trying not to serve Anglin once he retained Marc Randazza to avoid having to bring a lawsuit they're likely to lose.

http://weev.net/splc-i-will-personally-serve-andrew-anglin-f...

Weev is in this thread, actually. Search for CTO and you'll find his profile.

If you were them, would you want to make your physical address public?

But the abandonment of free speech by _private_ company, while worrisome, is very understandable. Internet and the SV made everyone more utilitarist. A lot of CEO (or website owner) think that way: it may not be very legal, but since it reduce cost and make more people happy than it make people unhappy, it should be fine. But from an utilitarist point of view, intolerance have a huge cost and create more unhappy people (not talking about violence, just people being the target of this intolerance) than happy people. Therefore, intolerant behavior should be stopped if there is some possibility.

Now, of course this was a mistake, but this mistake is understandable.

(I'm more of a negative utilitarist myself, but this work the same way)

Consider this: spam is speech too. No-one's seriously suggesting Twitter and Facebook shouldn't clamp down on that.

problem is, having unimpeded speech online requires being harbored by private companies, as there really isn't much in terms of government-managed domains, government-managed DDoS protection, etc

> Maybe it's an elaborate troll.

Of course it is. The entire point is provocation. How many people heard of Daily Stormer for the first time as a result of this whole drawn-out incident? Rather more than knew about it in the first place, I'd wager, judging by Google Trends and overall coverage.

Look at Stormfront, a more obscure (but probably worse) website: their domain got locked, but they seem to have it back now. Interestingly, it appears to be a registrar that issued a statement denouncing Daily Stormer.