| > Christchurch. Charlottesville. Numerous terrorists have indicated very clearly that they were radicalized online. Why the fuck is it somehow your responsibility to provide these people a platform to spread their poison? People can also be radicalized in person. Rallies, meetings, one-on-one conversations. Does that mean we have to police everyone's personal lives and invade their privacy? If "progressives" aren't visiting the website or doing anything to speak out against the website and it's content, it must not be important enough for them to warrant doing it. Also, it's not a pitiful justification. It's a really good business move on their part. I assume NFS has seen in the past that larger webhosts don't/won't allow this type of content on their platform and are removing it because it's easier for their legal team/marketing/PR/etc. NFS has filled the hole saying "hey, we'll support your right to free speech, even if you're offensive as all hell. We're just letting everyone know (including you) that we're donating all of the profits plus some to charities that actively fight against this type of culture since we don't agree with it." They get good PR, they get the "woe is me, we're beaten and downtrodden from censorship" customers that keep getting removed from other platforms, and they can still be on their moral/ethical high horse by donating the proceeds to charity. NFS shouldn't be responsible for who goes to their website or the content on it. NFS's job is to host websites, not police them. |