[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.