I’d be surprised if Twitter did not own their domain. They can’t be “banned” if this is the case.
Im sure they do as well, but they haven’t just been banned from GoDaddy. PayPal as well, along with Medium, Stripe and Joyent.
I don’t see them going after any other social networks for the same thing.
Ok, here goes. I’ll start quoting people if I have to.
But earlier, people were pointing out that the threats of violence is WHY GODADDY BANNED THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE. CITING IT WENT AGAINST THEIR TERMS OF SERVICE.
Yet, in your own whining on this post, you somehow keep equating it to censorship and people being oblivious to the outrage should be here because of said ‘‘censorship’’.
And in this very post, you complain about twitter not closing a guy’s account for threatening someone, but said Gab doesn’t do it because ‘‘free speech.’’
So which way is it?
At this point you are either not reading and comprehending or are just purposefully misrepresenting what I have said.
Maybe Twitter doesn’t have partnerships with those specific platforms or Twitter’s issues are overlooked? They are two vastly different platforms and cannot be treated the same.
1 Like
“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider"
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
The same law used to protect companies from lawsuits and consequence for what users say. Is being ignored now.
I’m sorry, but what’s being ignored? TOS says goodbye, GoDaddy made that decision. No legal framework needed beyond the agreement.
Did you even read it? I can tell probably not by the lack of clicks on the link. If you’re just going to ignore everything that’s brought up and repeat “TOS” just go away.
You quoted what you thought was relevant and I’m arguing it’s not. As have others through the TOS.
1 Like
You’re right, the law you linked does protect GoDaddy from being sued or being held criminally liable for the contents of Gab…but thats not what’s being argued here.
Some things just aren’t meant to be.
Reminds me of when dove world got pulled from the internet for a similar situation. In addition to the anti-muslim message they were shouting at the top of their lungs, they got their ISP hit with a syn flood the size of Kansas taking 100’s of their other clients offline in the process.
I have no sympathy for the downfall of gab. If they really want their site to live on, TOR is that way points
1 Like
Treat the TOS like school rules. Obey to their rules, you’re free to stay. Don’t obey (and that includes trying to bring up invalid arguments), go somewhere else. So be it, GoDaddy, Twitter and those other platforms won’t be in a position to hear your 2 hour lecture on free speech; they’ll come to an ultimate conclusion that it’s their property, not yours. If you want a safe place for yourself and your buddies, either find a “hosting company” that agrees with your views, or just set up your own one. If you do set up your own hosting server, nobody will care about it. You have your own rules to define, you have the freedom being yourself and the freedom to be an asshole without anyone cry afoul about your hateful content.
Now I’m not suggesting here, but this is similar to what terrorists do. They get “kicked” out of Clearnet, they now have to resort to Deep Web to promote radicalisation, hate and violence. And they didn’t even have to exponentially bitch, moan and cry about their rights.
1 Like
That seems to be your strategy.
Point out where no one is concerned about violence and radicals organizing on social media. Please, find one person on here that has argued that. Your string of posts have been filled with holes and fallacies since your first post.
The account linked above has been removed. The organization (Twitter) admitted there was a mistake. I’m starting to think you believe the responses are from live people. They are automated responses. If enough people report them the account is either auto-banned (again, automated process) or put under review. I’m presuming a lot on Twitter’s part but, generally, this is how it is on most social media. Hell, when your post got flagged, do you believe Wendell actually wrote a private message to you? No, it’s an automated response.
Furthermore, you have to be reported by more than just one offshoot person. If you have an army of dedicated followers that believe in your message, who is going to report you?
Last, the website that you are in defense of, has been removed from providers in the past for not removing threatening content. You have been saying “double standard” over and over again. It seems, to me, that you are the one with the double standard. Microsoft Azure removed Gab from their services because Gab would not take down a post that called for eradication of the Jews. I don’t know how you define it, but the only way I’ve known to interpret eradication is in a very lethal and deadly manner.
I read that wrong, Gab did remove the comment. Microsoft terminated the agreement at a later time due to continued behavior of the members of Gab.
You are a coward if you hide radicals, violence, and hate behind the cover of free speech. If your "free speech’ incites a riot, inspires murder, or creates conspiracy, you are not protected by the First Amendment. If your “free speech” results in a business terminating their business contract, citing violation of the agreement, you can take the issue to court. I’d advise Gab to do just that. However, after skimming their Twitter posts from the last 12 hours or so, I’d argue they have no intention of doing that. They’re playing the victim, par for the alt-whatever, they’re claiming “the establishment” is against them, so far to suggest that the owner/founder is going to be murdered and arranged to look like a suicide, and they have a history of very questionable rhetoric that, they probably know, will not go in their favor.
I’d also like to point out that in this era of censorship, Gab is still free to post on Twitter.
2 Likes
Irish here and I am pretty sure that was the Italians…
3 Likes
Definitely the italians.
We just brought potatos.
And binge drinking.
2 Likes
3 Likes
Obligatory, I’d say.
1 Like
Is there no hosting platform that will take on clients like gab or daily stormer or similar? It’s strange to me that they were using GoDaddy. The sequence of events seems very predictable, and arguably, they are in this predicament because they chose a hosting platform ineptly.
They are legally free to host their own content or find a provider who will offer them a contract which precludes the possibility of service termination over content (as long as it’s not illegal).
GoDaddy was their Registrar. They hosted with Joyent…who’s also canceled their contract.
1 Like
The daily stormer is a different and scarier situation.
Their domain was taken down by GoDaddy, during the transfer process they used google to host the domain that they owned. Google then stole the domain name and kicked them off their service. They then put the .com domain up for sale.
It seems like someone loyal to DS managed to buy it and redirect to their new domain. But for a while they had to go off of TOR. They were kicked off of like 16 registrars in a row.
Even scarier than this situation.
1 Like
The lesson is that if you’re going to host inflammatory content, you need to use a registrar/host that has guaranteed you that content won’t be grounds for cancellation. If you fail to secure said services, then your site will inevitably be taken down due to your own incompetence/blind optimism.