[logfromblammo]

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.

[jacquesm]

> 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.

[logfromblammo]

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?

[_jgvg]

> 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?

[_jgvg]

> 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?

[Clubber]

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?

[_jgvg]

> 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...

[Clubber]

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.

[_jgvg]

> 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...

[overcyn]

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.

[logfromblammo]

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.

[_jgvg]

> 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).

[Clubber]

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.