A lot of registrars can import from each other so its not like its hard. Literally takes like 2 seconds. They’re just trying to stir the pot and generate controversy IMO.
I’m sure GoDaddy does not want to be associated with a massacre in any shape or form.
Yeah, so they’re just getting ahead of the matter.
The problem is that a precedent has been set where 1 registrar cancels a contract and the rest follow suit. Leading to situations where you have no choice but to go with TOR or switch domains every month effectively killing any reach and audience you have. I.e. silenced.
What do you want Godaddy to do? Stand by this site? Face a massive boycott and have their stock crash? This is a corporation not a non profit forum.
We need better antitrust laws for isps. I just don’t have faith in our current administration being able to address this.
The only people claiming they stand by the site are the enemies of Gab. Nobody putting their money except a very VERY small group of people give 2 shits who else godaddy hosts.
99% don’t even know that godaddy hosted them.
I’m sure Gab doesn’t want to be associated either.
Technically, they aren’t being silenced just denied service by providers. Nothing is stopping them from buying their own IP block and running a DNS if they wanted to get serious with sort of thing.
How long do you think this ignorance would last if they did nothing?
True, but anyone who does
dig on them could figure it out. Wouldn’t take long.
If it where my business I’d do and have done the same thing.
In fact as part of my work I report suspect & dangerous domains to registrars daily and they get removed. They’re rarely as prominent as gab.com, but still registrars don’t like to be associated with controversy.
In a legal case by a good representative the domain registrar is easily implicated as a facilitator of x,y,z heinous activities committed.
And business don’t want to be associated with it.
If GoDaddy where my business, free speech implications would barely even rank on the criteria evaluated.
The reason GoDaddy even took action is due to actual legal paperwork filed which associates godaddy and gab.com.
If it’s my business image and potential legal implications on the line I’d do the same thing as GoDaddy did.
This is the matter of fact reality with hosting potentially controversial content.
Not everyone wants to be associated with it.
And that’s their rightly given choice.
I don’t think there is an issue as far as the law is concerned. I just think it’s a lazy response, but it’s their company, their terms, their choice.
This is ultimately what it comes down to.
Companies are run by people with feelings, rights and ideals, many not at all unlike us.
Among the right to free speech legally endowed to us, it also endows us (and others) with the freedom of association and whom we choose to conduct business with.
As such I paraphrase:
The Constitution protects the right of free association as part of the first amendment. A person is allowed to form his own belief or association with people, essentially of his own free will. This applies to businesses, as well. Most notably, you do not have the right to hand out information about a personal cause at a place of business without the business owner’s consent. He does not need to allow you to associate that belief with his business.
Oh don’t pull free association that’s a joke. Affirmative action and diversity quotas blow that out of any realm of reality.
_hill I’m going to put it to you straight.
Read it again. This aspect is about you or I or anyone as a business owner.
If you as a business owner in a cafe don’t want to serve certain people because of what they do, (though not who they are), you actually legally have that choice.
You can try to understand the topic or dismissively deflect points raised.
I don’t mess about.
lol sounds a lot like the Jerry Springer and Geraldo Rivera shows!
I personally don’t believe in censorship of any kind, But i do believe that if you are going to be confrontational in public or in a forum you should accept the consequence of breaking the rules.
for example if you are a restaurant you cannot refuse service for social status, race, or handicapped But you can refuse service if someone is deliberately disturbing the peace and or assaulting your patrons or staff
and the whole thing with free speech you are entirely within your rights to say anything you wish they cannot stop you!
But you must understand regardless of free speech you are still accountable by law for what you say and culpable for the damages that it causes.
so whats needed? lessons in mutual respect!
I have been on different forums where they argue religion and politics to the point where threats start flying! Is that type of crap needed (NO), Is it sanctioned?(no) is their right to spread that problem restricted (No)
in spite of warnings from admin and moderators they still cause upset until they are banned for 3 to 6 month’s
the thing is its the users themselves that need to self govern their behavior!
I dislike troll behavior intensely and being a moderator and admin myself on other forums I am quick to warn and pm warnings as well eventually banning if they fail to heed the advice.
that being said my advice is this If something has upset you enough to want to exhibit troll behavior and pick fights with people its best to step away from the computer and go give yourself hell in the mirror
but back to the original topic as a business that go-daddy is they are a for profit business.
If a site associated and hosted by them interferes or in anyways shows to be detrimental to their business they are entirely within their right to take them down.
This reminds me of an interaction that a good friend of mine had with a Virginia state trooper, after being pulled over for speeding. When my friend protested that he was being singled out, but that he was merely keeping up with the traffic flow, the trooper asked:
“Did you ever go fishing, sir?”
“Yes, officer, every chance I get,” my friend enthusiastically replied.
“Did you catch them all?” The trooper asked.
Should we repeal all traffic laws, because there is no conceivable way to catch and punish every single infraction? What about the larceny, fraud and assault laws? Shall we make murder legal, because the police do not always get their man?
Rather than giving up on Internet bullies, I propose that we have a few high profile prosecutions and the credible likelihood, that when someone truly steps over the line while on-line, they will receive a knock on the door from their friendly neighborhood LEO. Obviously, the cops will not be able to address every single instance, but it will change hearts and minds, freeing up the police to focus on the truly outrageous as well as the repeat offenders.
That’s a fair point, but then you’d be faced with prosecuting someone for threats made on the internet when they didn’t actually hurt anybody, and that would bring up all sorts of thorny free speech issues here in the US. And, of course, cops have limited resources, they could be spending that time catching drug dealers and domestic abusers and such.
Free Association is literally part of our constitution. So how in the hell can you ignore that?
So you’re trying to say, that ‘‘free speech’’ means you get to negate any other freedoms that are afforded others just because you’re free to speak it?
That’s not how it works buddy.
As said before, and I’ll highlight it “FREE SPEECH, DOES NOT MEAN FREE OF CONCEQUENCES”
Just like most people associate Open Source, with free to use, or free to contribute. When in all reality, Open Source only means you get to look at the Source. Whether it be code, or the written word, or etc.
In fact there are alot of Open Source projects that don’t accept code from outsiders. And don’t lease their code to anyone. You are free to see the code, but you are not free to distribute it or use it in your project.
All to often people take the word free, and give it definitions, and abilities the word just doesn’t have.
So yes, while everyone has Free Speech and are able to say whatever the hell they want, it does not make them free from consequences.
Gab.com was facilitating in things that GoDaddy explicitly has stated in their own ToS they don’t allow. And because they don’t want to associate themselves with people who partake in such activities, they terminated their contract with Gab. Which they are legally allowed to do so.
Just because it doesn’t jive with your idea of how Free Speech works, doesn’t make it legally, or morally wrong. They were protecting their own assets, and they can’t be faulted for that.