Godaddy's in-house survey monkey just hit me up. Thought it was a good time to express their lack of advising themselves in regard to the impact to their public image when they took a stand against TDS: - Why did you rate Godaddy the way you just did (low)? Godaddy took a stand against freedom of speech in rejecting TheDailyStormer.com's (TDS) domain registration, and GoDaddy did so in a way which failed to uphold one of our community's foundational freedoms. When undermining a fundamental human right, as Godaddy did to TDS, even if your target is speaking objectionably, Godaddy as an "information carrier" (of sorts) has a significantly higher duty of care to its customers (e.g. TDS) than other entities. Godaddy, in cancelling TDS' domain, failed to conduct itself in a way compatible with its duty of care obligations to our community to treat every body fairly and in a way which preserves due process. Godaddy should advise itself to inform itself of the requirements for conduct in relation to those of its customers who say things on their websites which Godaddy may object to. - What is the single most important thing we could do to improve your experience? Advise yourself that when you take a public stand against freedom of speech (even objectionable speech), you are affecting your reputation negatively, in a big way. Due to the TDS episode, my plans are to transition completely off of Godaddy in the coming 2 years.
On 09/11/2017 04:35 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
Godaddy's in-house survey monkey just hit me up. Thought it was a good time to express their lack of advising themselves in regard to the impact to their public image when they took a stand against TDS:
- Why did you rate Godaddy the way you just did (low)? Godaddy took a stand against freedom of speech in rejecting TheDailyStormer.com's (TDS) domain registration, and GoDaddy did so in a way which failed to uphold one of our community's foundational freedoms.
When undermining a fundamental human right, as Godaddy did to TDS, even if your target is speaking objectionably, Godaddy as an "information carrier" (of sorts) has a significantly higher duty of care to its customers (e.g. TDS) than other entities.
Godaddy, in cancelling TDS' domain, failed to conduct itself in a way compatible with its duty of care obligations to our community to treat every body fairly and in a way which preserves due process.
Godaddy should advise itself to inform itself of the requirements for conduct in relation to those of its customers who say things on their websites which Godaddy may object to.
- What is the single most important thing we could do to improve your experience? Advise yourself that when you take a public stand against freedom of speech (even objectionable speech), you are affecting your reputation negatively, in a big way. Due to the TDS episode, my plans are to transition completely off of Godaddy in the coming 2 years.
The ShitSturmer got bounced for claiming GoDaddy's management supported their wrong opinion about Jews Blacks Catholics, Gypsies, and just about everyone but Whitebread middleclass men. I'll let Terry Allen. Austin's own Country Boy Hippie tell ya. The song is called "Big Ol' White Boys" https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=137&v=JP0tPchikYc I'd point you to James McMurtry's "We Can't Make It Here Any More" Some have maxed out all their credit cards Some are working two jobs and living in cars Minimum wage won't pay for a roof, won't pay for a drink If you gotta have proof just try it yourself Mr. C.E.O. See how far 5.15 an hour will go Take a part time job at one your stores I bet you can't make it here anymore And there's a high school girl with a bourgeois dream Just like the pictures in the magazine She found on the floor of the laundromat A woman with kids can forget all that If she comes up pregnant what'll she do Forget the career and forget about school Can she live on faith? Live on hope? High on Jesus or hooked on dope When it's way too late to just say no You can't make it here anymore Now I'm stocking shirts in the Wal-Mart store Just like the ones we made before 'Cept this one came from Singapore I guess we can't make it here anymore Should I hate a people for the shade of their skin Or the shape of their eyes or the shape I'm in Should I hate 'em for having our jobs today No I hate the men sent the jobs away I can see them all now, they haunt my dreams All lily white and squeaky clean They've never known want, they'll never know need Their shit don't stink and their kids won't bleed Their kids won't bleed in their damn little war And we can't make it here anymore Will I work for food, will I die for oil Will kill for power and to us the spoils The billionaires get to pay less tax The working poor get to fall through the cracks So let 'em eat jellybeans let 'em eat cake Let 'em eat shit, whatever it takes They can join the Air Force or join the Corps If they can't make it here anymore Live: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8h5VdIe33o ...but your pin head would probably explode. Rr
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 07:13:14PM -0700, Razer wrote:
On 09/11/2017 04:35 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
Godaddy's in-house survey monkey just hit me up. Thought it was a good time to express their lack of advising themselves in regard to the impact to their public image when they took a stand against TDS:
- Why did you rate Godaddy the way you just did (low)? Godaddy took a stand against freedom of speech in rejecting TheDailyStormer.com's (TDS) domain registration, and GoDaddy did so in a way which failed to uphold one of our community's foundational freedoms.
When undermining a fundamental human right, as Godaddy did to TDS, even if your target is speaking objectionably, Godaddy as an "information carrier" (of sorts) has a significantly higher duty of care to its customers (e.g. TDS) than other entities.
Godaddy, in cancelling TDS' domain, failed to conduct itself in a way compatible with its duty of care obligations to our community to treat every body fairly and in a way which preserves due process.
Godaddy should advise itself to inform itself of the requirements for conduct in relation to those of its customers who say things on their websites which Godaddy may object to.
- What is the single most important thing we could do to improve your experience? Advise yourself that when you take a public stand against freedom of speech (even objectionable speech), you are affecting your reputation negatively, in a big way. Due to the TDS episode, my plans are to transition completely off of Godaddy in the coming 2 years.
The ShitSturmer got bounced for claiming
Oh? I'd ordinarily assume the good intention that you actually have a fact to back this up - but your record is rather lean on the "facts" dept "Razer". ProTip: "everybody knows" and "all major governments say so", are not, despite common misunderstandings, facts. ...
GoDaddy's management supported their wrong opinion about Jews Blacks Catholics, Gypsies, and just about everyone but Whitebread middleclass men.
... Example: your saying "I am a GoDaddy shill" would be a first-hand, "from personal knowledge" fact, whereas if I were to say "Weev, TDS's website administrator, nor Angling, it's founder, ever said any such as you claim, Razer", that could sound like a fact, but in actual fact it would merely be an assertion on my part. (Admittedly, as much as I'd like to claim that as a fact, I unfortunately have not quite crossed Occam's Razer's edge to capacity to prove uncertainties/ unknowables. You on the other hand should have no problem proving your positive assertion as it only requires one teensy weensy little example to verify your statement...)
I'll let Terry Allen. Austin's own Country Boy Hippie tell ya.
The song is called "Big Ol' White Boys"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=137&v=JP0tPchikYc
At about 1.5x speed (from 2:20) is perfect - funny too :) ...
Live: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8h5VdIe33o
...but your pin head would probably explode.
That's called an ad-hominem attack. You might have heard of it before - in fact, you might have used it before. ProTip: an ad-hominem attack is not a conversation "win", it's just a decent into personal attack. I reworded the last chorus of the first song for ya Razer: Sittin here on the banks of victim, lookin' out, at the White pride; Wonderin' if I'm ever gonna get 'em, believin' my "chosen people" lie! Big ole' bankers, fat and plunder, Livin' high on Zio creed; Rule the world while we get dummer, Fuel the fued by other's' needs.
On 09/11/2017 07:44 PM !@#$%^&*() wrote:
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 07:13:14PM -0700, Razer wrote:
On 09/11/2017 04:35 PM, !@#$%^&*() wrote:
Godaddy's in-house survey monkey just hit me up. Thought it was a good time to express their lack of advising themselves in regard to the impact to their public image when they took a stand against TDS:
- Why did you rate Godaddy the way you just did (low)? Godaddy took a stand against freedom of speech in rejecting TheDailyStormer.com's (TDS) domain registration, and GoDaddy did so in a way which failed to uphold one of our community's foundational freedoms.
When undermining a fundamental human right, as Godaddy did to TDS, even if your target is speaking objectionably, Godaddy as an "information carrier" (of sorts) has a significantly higher duty of care to its customers (e.g. TDS) than other entities.
Godaddy, in cancelling TDS' domain, failed to conduct itself in a way compatible with its duty of care obligations to our community to treat every body fairly and in a way which preserves due process.
Godaddy should advise itself to inform itself of the requirements for conduct in relation to those of its customers who say things on their websites which Godaddy may object to.
- What is the single most important thing we could do to improve your experience? Advise yourself that when you take a public stand against freedom of speech (even objectionable speech), you are affecting your reputation negatively, in a big way. Due to the TDS episode, my plans are to transition completely off of Godaddy in the coming 2 years.
The ShitSturmer got bounced for claiming Oh?
Not "Oh". The link to GoDaddy's complete statement regarding it appeared on this list. Look it up. The CEO said the article about Heather Heyer was tasteless and borderline hate speech but what cut it was the Shitrag's peeps claiming GoDaddy supported their beliefs, and since that was a complete fabrication and libelous, the Shitrag was outta there. Typical Nazis. Give them a gun and they commit suicide.
I'd ordinarily assume the good intention that you actually have a fact to back this up - but your record is rather lean on the "facts" dept "Razer".
I have no good intentions towards you and the only thing I'd 'lean on' is a 2x4 across your Carotid artery.
ProTip: "everybody knows" and "all major governments say so", are not, despite common misunderstandings, facts.
...
GoDaddy's management supported their wrong opinion about Jews Blacks Catholics, Gypsies, and just about everyone but Whitebread middleclass men. ... Example: your saying "I am a GoDaddy shill" would be a first-hand, "from personal knowledge" fact, whereas if I were to say "Weev, TDS's website administrator, nor Angling, it's founder, ever said any such as you claim, Razer", that could sound like a fact, but in actual fact it would merely be an assertion on my part.
(Admittedly, as much as I'd like to claim that as a fact, I unfortunately have not quite crossed Occam's Razer's edge to capacity to prove uncertainties/ unknowables.
You on the other hand should have no problem proving your positive assertion as it only requires one teensy weensy little example to verify your statement...)
I'll let Terry Allen. Austin's own Country Boy Hippie tell ya.
The song is called "Big Ol' White Boys"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=137&v=JP0tPchikYc At about 1.5x speed (from 2:20) is perfect - funny too :)
...
Live: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8h5VdIe33o
...but your pin head would probably explode. That's called an ad-hominem attack.
Yup. Absolutely, pinhead. Rr
You might have heard of it before - in fact, you might have used it before.
ProTip: an ad-hominem attack is not a conversation "win", it's just a decent into personal attack.
I reworded the last chorus of the first song for ya Razer:
Sittin here on the banks of victim, lookin' out, at the White pride; Wonderin' if I'm ever gonna get 'em, believin' my "chosen people" lie!
Big ole' bankers, fat and plunder, Livin' high on Zio creed; Rule the world while we get dummer, Fuel the fued by other's' needs.
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 08:05:15PM -0700, Razer wrote:
On 09/11/2017 07:44 PM !@#$%^&*() wrote:
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 07:13:14PM -0700, Razer wrote:
On 09/11/2017 04:35 PM, !@#$%^&*() wrote:
Godaddy's in-house survey monkey just hit me up. Thought it was a good time to express their lack of advising themselves in regard to the impact to their public image when they took a stand against TDS:
- Why did you rate Godaddy the way you just did (low)? Godaddy took a stand against freedom of speech in rejecting TheDailyStormer.com's (TDS) domain registration, and GoDaddy did so in a way which failed to uphold one of our community's foundational freedoms.
When undermining a fundamental human right, as Godaddy did to TDS, even if your target is speaking objectionably, Godaddy as an "information carrier" (of sorts) has a significantly higher duty of care to its customers (e.g. TDS) than other entities.
Godaddy, in cancelling TDS' domain, failed to conduct itself in a way compatible with its duty of care obligations to our community to treat every body fairly and in a way which preserves due process.
Godaddy should advise itself to inform itself of the requirements for conduct in relation to those of its customers who say things on their websites which Godaddy may object to.
- What is the single most important thing we could do to improve your experience? Advise yourself that when you take a public stand against freedom of speech (even objectionable speech), you are affecting your reputation negatively, in a big way. Due to the TDS episode, my plans are to transition completely off of Godaddy in the coming 2 years.
The ShitSturmer got bounced for claiming Oh?
Not "Oh". The link to GoDaddy's complete statement regarding it appeared on this list. Look it up. The CEO said
Oh, OK, it's not you saying it, --- it's, wait for it, the CEO of Godaddy!!! --- OMFG bow to the assertions of a CEO of some corporate for profit entity existing on "US Govt 'Statute' welfare". Why am I not surprised Razer that you've backed up your assertion with the assertion of someone else - a corporate CEO and nothing less (!) ?
the article about Heather Heyer was tasteless and borderline hate speech but what cut it was the Shitrag's peeps claiming GoDaddy supported their beliefs,
So I assume "the peeps" is random semi-anonymous individuals (or multiple sock puppets of the same person) posting on TDS. Got it: a random anonmous person said something about Godaddy on some website which Godaddy was holding the centralised domain registration for, and so Godaddy wielded their significant corporate power to wipe an entire website from the Internet. Yep, entirely rational.
and since that was a complete fabrication and libelous,
Are you backpeddling now saying Godaddy's claptrap was complete fabrication and libelous? Is this "Razer" I'm responding to?
the Shitrag was outta there. Typical Nazis. Give them a gun and they commit suicide.
I expect ad-hominems from you Razer, but anyway let's review your original assertion: You somehow caused to be sent to this august list:
The ShitSturmer got bounced for claiming GoDaddy's management supported their wrong opinion
Yes, I admit sadly, now you're beginning to make perfect sense: - TDS got kicked from Godaddy - your fact I agree with. - "Because they claimed" - your assertion, but a really important "more equal than others assertion" since it's backed up by a similar assertion by the .... CEO <drum roll> of Godaddy corporation. - "they" claimed Godaddy's management supported their .. opinion - so some anonymous someone (troll trying to take down TDS?) made some random anonymous claim about a corporation which the CEO did not like, and so said CEO took his bat and ball (and blanket) home with him since he didn't want to play anymore. - "they" had a "wrong opinion" - welp Razer, you've definitely nailed the funamentals of a strong argument and irrefutable fact here, I must say. Glad you clarified your position now - we might have been confused otherwise. Or something ...
I'd ordinarily assume the good intention that you actually have a fact to back this up - but your record is rather lean on the "facts" dept "Razer".
I have no good intentions towards you and the only thing I'd 'lean on' is a 2x4 across your Carotid artery.
My my, what Antifa tactics you have there "big boy" :) Killed any Nazis lately?
...
Live: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8h5VdIe33o
...but your pin head would probably explode. That's called an ad-hominem attack.
Yup. Absolutely, pinhead. Rr
Yup. Absolutely, ad-hominem.
You might have heard of it before - in fact, you might have used it before.
ProTip: an ad-hominem attack is not a conversation "win", it's just a decent into personal attack.
I reworded the last chorus of the first song for ya Razer:
Sittin here on the banks of victim, lookin' out, at the White pride; Wonderin' if I'm ever gonna get 'em, believin' my "chosen people" lie!
Big ole' bankers, fat and plunder, Livin' high on Zio creed; Rule the world while we get dummer, Fuel the fued by other's' needs.
On 09/11/2017 08:29 PM, !@#$%^&*()_+ wrote:
The ShitSturmer got bounced for claiming Oh? Not "Oh". The link to GoDaddy's complete statement regarding it appeared on this list. Look it up. The CEO said Oh, OK, it's not you saying it, --- it's, wait for it, the CEO of Godaddy!!! --- OMFG bow to the assertions of a CEO of some corporate for profit entity existing on "US Govt 'Statute' welfare".
Why am I not surprised Razer that you've backed up your assertion with the assertion of someone else - a corporate CEO and nothing less (!) ?
I just wanted to put this clip up here for posterity. Paraphrasing the CEO when the discussion is about his company is claimed not to be germane, or the fact he's CEO somehow 'sullies' me. Sort of like being Good German who heard a Jew speak on the radio, makes the crypto-nazi suspect. Just sayin'. Your Grandfather's propaganda doesn't work anymore. Besides Corporate Media Back the Fascists <https://crimethinc.com/2017/08/29/not-your-grandfathers-antifascism-anti-fascism-has-arrived-heres-where-it-needs-to-go> anyway. Your shitrag is just so much masturbatory material. Like Eldridge Cleaver said about White Radicals putting pics of molotovs on their walls and jerking off to them. Rr
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 09:59:16AM -0700, Razer wrote:
On 09/11/2017 08:29 PM, !@#$%^&*()_+ wrote:
The ShitSturmer got bounced for claiming Oh? Not "Oh". The link to GoDaddy's complete statement regarding it appeared on this list. Look it up. The CEO said Oh, OK, it's not you saying it, --- it's, wait for it, the CEO of Godaddy!!! --- OMFG bow to the assertions of a CEO of some corporate for profit entity existing on "US Govt 'Statute' welfare".
Why am I not surprised Razer that you've backed up your assertion with the assertion of someone else - a corporate CEO and nothing less (!) ?
I just wanted to put this clip up here for posterity.
Paraphrasing the CEO when the discussion is about his company is claimed not to be germane,
Feel free to continue to be obtuse, but you know that's got nothing to do with calling you out on your lack of facts. Paraphrase away - but why should your fact-less opinions be given any more credence just because you end up paraphrasing the opinion of someone else - even if it is a CEO? And even if it is the CEO of the company at issue? Why the F is his opinion any more of a fact than your opinion? Remember what you said:
The ShitSturmer got bounced for claiming
I said "that's a baseless, factless, opinion and nothing more", or words to that effect. You can back saying "oh well, you might be right - hey look here, actually it's not just my opinion, the CEO of the company at issue has this opinion also". And so, why are you surprised when I turn around and say "Razer, Razer, Razer, whatever are you smoking? The CEO's opininion is no more a fact than your opinion - how can continue to mistake opinions for facts?"
or the fact he's CEO somehow 'sullies' me.
Not at all, Razer - presenting the opinion of another as a fact and as "not just an opinion", when it's nothing more than an opinion, and when you were directly challenged on your own (identical) opinion earlier expressed, does not sully you whatsoever. All it does is point out that you have a high opinion of opinions, including your own, and apparently adopt the opinions of CEO's as though they're facts, and then try to pass them off not only as facts, but as your own opinionated "facts" (scare quotes intentional).
Sort of like being Good German who heard a Jew speak on the radio, makes the crypto-nazi suspect.
Victim consciousness more?
Just sayin'. Your Grandfather's propaganda doesn't work anymore. Besides Corporate Media Back the Fascists <https://crimethinc.com/2017/08/29/not-your-grandfathers-antifascism-anti-fascism-has-arrived-heres-where-it-needs-to-go> anyway.
Your shitrag is just so much masturbatory material. Like Eldridge Cleaver said about White Radicals putting pics of molotovs on their walls and jerking off to them. Rr
Whatever your favourite targets for ad-homs are, they are. That STILL doesn't make your opinion about them a fact. And NEITHER does it make Godaddy's CEO's apparently identical opinion about them, a fact. And finally whether you are sullied by quoting Godaddy's CEO's opinion, as a supposed fact to back up your own opinion, is a matter for you and others - why should I care who you're smokin'? Just sayin'
Back onto the topic of substance at issue, even Slate gets it in this well written piece about the dangers of a regime of censorship, by whatever technical means and whatever "scoundrel" of the day (<ahem>Razer<ahem>) gets used to justify such: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2017/08/the_one_big_prob... Good luck folks,
Read the CEO's blog post. The link was put up here. The fact that the assjack who pwns the sturmer said something publicly to the effect that by allowing them operate and say what they do it indicated support for their genocidal belief shitstem. Bam. Outta there! Not even admitting they used their godaddy services to stalk CNN staff was enough, but implying the service agreed with them because allowing that digital birdcageliner to operate indicated support for them was the crux of the biscuit why GD called in it's marker. Rr On 09/12/2017 03:36 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
Back onto the topic of substance at issue, even Slate gets it in this well written piece about the dangers of a regime of censorship, by whatever technical means and whatever "scoundrel" of the day (<ahem>Razer<ahem>) gets used to justify such:
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2017/08/the_one_big_prob...
Good luck folks,
The Terrifying Power of Internet Censors https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/13/opinion/cloudflare-daily-stormer-charlott... Terrifying!
The Terrifying Power of Internet Censors
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/13/opinion/cloudflare-daily-stormer-charlott...
Terrifying!
TDS is not in line with my views, but indeed it is terrifying. Should someone tip Peter Sunde to start competition? x9p
nytimes = fake new no worries -------- Original Message -------- On Sep 13, 2017, 4:04 AM, John Young wrote:
The Terrifying Power of Internet Censors
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/13/opinion/cloudflare-daily-stormer-charlott...
Terrifying!
On 09/13/2017 07:04 AM, John Young wrote:
The Terrifying Power of Internet Censors
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/13/opinion/cloudflare-daily-stormer-charlott...
Terrifying!
I have a feeling that Internet Registrars and Cloudflare are doing this for their own legal protection. It's long established law that conspiracy to commit genocide, ethnic cleansing and to violate the human rights of groups of people is a crime. Creating the theoretical framework for genocide is also a crime as was evidenced by the conviction of Julius Streicher who authored Daily Stormer's predescessor Der Sturmer. It's Cloudflare and Registrars protecting themselves from being complicit in human rights crimes. And you know what. I don't blame them. I wouldn't piss on Andrew Anglin if he was on fire.
On Wednesday, September 13, 2017, 10:50:40 AM PDT, Marina Brown <catskillmarina@gmail.com> wrote: On 09/13/2017 07:04 AM, John Young wrote:
The Terrifying Power of Internet Censors
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/13/opinion/cloudflare-daily-stormer-charlott...
Terrifying!
I have a feeling that Internet Registrars and Cloudflare are doing this for their own legal protection.
I have a feeling that you are inventing reasoning that would be, in itself, illogical and quite stilted. Sure, deluded people exist, but organizations who are in control of such things have a responsibility to not abuse their authority.
It's long established law that conspiracy to commit genocide, ethnic cleansing and to violate the human rights of groups of people is a crime. Creating the theoretical framework for genocide is also a crime as was evidenced by the conviction of Julius Streicher who authored Daily Stormer's predescessor Der Sturmer.
It's Cloudflare and Registrars protecting themselves from being complicit in human rights crimes.
And you know what. I don't blame them. I wouldn't piss on Andrew Anglinif he was on fire.
Sorry, but you are not even hundreds of miles away from being correct on this. To label DNS service, which is essentially monopoly, as supporting "genocide" is about 3-4 leaps of logic, far too much to work. A few nuts spouting nonsense is far, very far, from "conspiracy to commit genocide". Merely providing necessary net services to them, just as is done for thousands of sites, cannot possibly be described that way. Maybe you just have no respect for the concept of "Free Speech". Jim Bell
On 09/13/2017 02:30 PM, jim bell wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2017, 10:50:40 AM PDT, Marina Brown <catskillmarina@gmail.com> wrote:
On 09/13/2017 07:04 AM, John Young wrote:
The Terrifying Power of Internet Censors
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/13/opinion/cloudflare-daily-stormer-charlott...
Terrifying!
I have a feeling that Internet Registrars and Cloudflare are doing this for their own legal protection.
I have a feeling that you are inventing reasoning that would be, in itself, illogical and quite stilted. Sure, deluded people exist, but organizations who are in control of such things have a responsibility to not abuse their authority.
Yes - i am only speculating, but there are lawyers out there who have brought up the possible charge. I spoke with one of them recently.
It's long established law that conspiracy to commit genocide, ethnic cleansing and to violate the human rights of groups of people is a crime. Creating the theoretical framework for genocide is also a crime as was evidenced by the conviction of Julius Streicher who authored Daily Stormer's predescessor Der Sturmer.
It's Cloudflare and Registrars protecting themselves from being complicit in human rights crimes.
And you know what. I don't blame them. I wouldn't piss on Andrew Anglin if he was on fire.
Sorry, but you are not even hundreds of miles away from being correct on this. To label DNS service, which is essentially monopoly, as supporting "genocide" is about 3-4 leaps of logic, far too much to work. A few nuts spouting nonsense is far, very far, from "conspiracy to commit genocide". Merely providing necessary net services to them, just as is done for thousands of sites, cannot possibly be described that way. Maybe you just have no respect for the concept of "Free Speech".
Jim Bell
I am concerned about the market monopoly of DNS service ...but
This is not about speech. It is about people conspiring to commit genocide, ethnic cleansing and to remove peoples human rights. I am quoting law used in Neuremburg. ...The same law that was used to convict Julius Streicher. You cannot simultaneously enguage in free speech and a conspiracy to commit genocide. One is permitted, one is a crime. ...Unless you want to redefine free speech to include criminal conspiracy. We can oppose monopolies like DNS TLD without defending conspiracy to commit genocide.
On Wednesday, September 13, 2017, 12:04:45 PM PDT, Marina Brown <catskillmarina@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry, but you are not even hundreds of miles away from being correct on this. To label DNS service, which is essentially monopoly, as supporting "genocide" is about 3-4 leaps of logic, far too much to work. A few nuts spouting nonsense is far, very far, from "conspiracy to commit genocide". Merely providing necessary net services to them, just as is done for thousands of sites, cannot possibly be described that way. Maybe you just have no respect for the concept of "Free Speech". Jim Bell
I am concerned about the market monopoly of DNS service ...but This is not about speech. It is about people conspiring to commit genocide, ethnic cleansing and to remove peoples human rights.
Sorry, but I cannot agree. That's way too close to the 'nutty lefty' way of thinking that is infecting our society today. At most, it is "hate speech", which the First Amendment protects.
You cannot simultaneously enguage in free speech and a conspiracy to commit genocide. One is permitted, one is a crime.
What do you mean, "you cannot"? Do you mean, 'you are not allowed to'? Or do you mean, 'you are not capable of...'. ? Further, your reference to "conspiracy to commit genocide" is merely a flawed characterization on your part. While I don't claim that absolutely no people on the right are "conspiring to commit genocide", the vast majority are merely engaging in hostile speech that the left doesn't like, speech that I consider they have a right to make. I don't consider that as any justification at all to begin trying to shut down their right to free speech. Actual genocide is a major problem But your mere characterization of free speech as being "conspiracy to commit genocide" appears to me to not merely be wrong, but foolish.
"...Unless you want to redefine free speech to include criminal conspiracy."
Unless you can actually show a specific criminal conspiracy, I'm not interested in your histrionics.
"We can oppose monopolies like DNS TLD without defending conspiracy to commit genocide."
We can defend people's right to free speech without being accused of defending conspiracy to commit genocide.Oh, wait, I forgot. That's SO 20th Century!!! Jim Bell
On 09/13/2017 04:22 PM, jim bell wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2017, 12:04:45 PM PDT, Marina Brown <catskillmarina@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry, but you are not even hundreds of miles away from being correct on this. To label DNS service, which is essentially monopoly, as supporting "genocide" is about 3-4 leaps of logic, far too much to work. A few nuts spouting nonsense is far, very far, from "conspiracy to commit genocide". Merely providing necessary net services to them, just as is done for thousands of sites, cannot possibly be described that way. Maybe you just have no respect for the concept of "Free Speech". Jim Bell
I am concerned about the market monopoly of DNS service ...but This is not about speech. It is about people conspiring to commit genocide, ethnic cleansing and to remove peoples human rights.
Sorry, but I cannot agree. That's way too close to the 'nutty lefty' way of thinking that is infecting our society today. At most, it is "hate speech", which the First Amendment protects.
You cannot simultaneously enguage in free speech and a conspiracy to commit genocide. One is permitted, one is a crime.
What do you mean, "you cannot"? Do you mean, 'you are not allowed to'? Or do you mean, 'you are not capable of...'. ?
Further, your reference to "conspiracy to commit genocide" is merely a flawed characterization on your part. While I don't claim that absolutely no people on the right are "conspiring to commit genocide", the vast majority are merely engaging in hostile speech that the left doesn't like, speech that I consider they have a right to make. I don't consider that as any justification at all to begin trying to shut down their right to free speech.
Actual genocide is a major problem But your mere characterization of free speech as being "conspiracy to commit genocide" appears to me to not merely be wrong, but foolish.
"...Unless you want to redefine free speech to include criminal conspiracy."
Unless you can actually show a specific criminal conspiracy, I'm not interested in your histrionics.
"We can oppose monopolies like DNS TLD without defending conspiracy to commit genocide."
We can defend people's right to free speech without being accused of defending conspiracy to commit genocide. Oh, wait, I forgot. That's SO 20th Century!!!
Jim Bell
I do defend Free Speech - but when people start planning on murdering whole groups of people it is no longer free speech. It's something else. There is no need for Hate Speech laws. ...Just when things go to plotting genocide, ethnic cleansing or removing the human rights of large groups of people it's criminal. Of course the actual line needs to be determined not by me but by a legitimate court. Would you actually call the Neuremburg trials nutty lefty ? I think not. It's mainstream actually rather conservative law.
On Wednesday, September 13, 2017, 8:14:36 PM PDT, Marina Brown <catskillmarina@gmail.com> wrote:
"We can oppose monopolies like DNS TLD without defending conspiracy to commit genocide."
We can defend people's right to free speech without being accused of defending conspiracy to commit genocide. Oh, wait, I forgot. That's SO 20th Century!!!
Jim Bell
I do defend Free Speech - but when people start planning on murdering whole groups of people it is no longer free speech. It's something else.
You say that as if we must all already agree that: There are significant numbers of people 'starting planning on murdering whole groups of people...' Give us a few actual examples. And what is your definition of "significant numbers'? If we are talking murdered bodies, even one might be called a "significant number". But somehow, to worry most people, you need to show how big the figure is compared with, say, the population of America. Are the number of people that will be killed greater, or less than, the number of people who die yearly falling down stairs at home, by accident? For the year 2000, it was 1307. If it's only 1/10th that number, say 131, it's going to be hard to get people excited. And remember all the people murdered in Chicago yearly. 761 in 2016. https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2016-chicago-murders Jim Bell
On 09/14/2017 03:44 AM, jim bell wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2017, 8:14:36 PM PDT, Marina Brown <catskillmarina@gmail.com> wrote:
"We can oppose monopolies like DNS TLD without defending conspiracy to commit genocide."
We can defend people's right to free speech without being accused of defending conspiracy to commit genocide. Oh, wait, I forgot. That's SO 20th Century!!!
Jim Bell
I do defend Free Speech - but when people start planning on murdering whole groups of people it is no longer free speech. It's something else.
You say that as if we must all already agree that: There are significant numbers of people 'starting planning on murdering whole groups of people...' Give us a few actual examples.
Thankfully it is not significant numbers of people planning genocide. If there were we would be in much more trouble than we are. Groups like ironmarch, atomwaffen and many on Daily stormer certainly appear to be planning genocide. One does not tag their publication "the most genocidal republican website" if one is not interested in promoting genocide. ...But of course that will be for a judge to decide. Not me.
And what is your definition of "significant numbers'? If we are talking murdered bodies, even one might be called a "significant number". But somehow, to worry most people, you need to show how big the figure is compared with, say, the population of America. Are the number of people that will be killed greater, or less than, the number of people who die yearly falling down stairs at home, by accident? For the year 2000, it was 1307. If it's only 1/10th that number, say 131, it's going to be hard to get people excited.
I'm not trying to get people excited. I'm just stating the legal fact that conspiracy to commit genocide, ethnic cleansing and to deny human rights is not free speech. It's a crime.
And remember all the people murdered in Chicago yearly. 761 in 2016. https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2016-chicago-murders
Nonsequitur. One dead is too many.
Jim Bell
Marina Brown
On Thursday, September 14, 2017, 11:34:08 AM PDT, Marina Brown <catskillmarina@gmail.com> wrote: On 09/14/2017 03:44 AM, jim bell wrote:
You say that as if we must all already agree that: There are significant numbers of people 'starting planning on murdering whole groups of people...' Give us a few actual examples.
Thankfully it is not significant numbers of people planning genocide. Ifthere were we would be in much more trouble than we are.
You seem to be backing away from your original position. That's progress.
Groups like ironmarch, atomwaffen and many on Daily stormer certainly appear to be planning genocide. One does not tag their publication "the most genocidal republican website" if one is not interested in promoting genocide.
People could "plan genocide" by email, Twitter, IRC, Plain Old Telephone System, Fax, Telex (?), TWX (?) smoke signals, semaphore, tin-cans-and-a-string, message-in-a-bottle, or the U.S. mail if they aren't allowed to have websites.
...But of course that will be for a judge to decide. Not me.
But I think you were talking about DNS and website registration. What does prosecuting people for "planning genocide" have to do with registering websites? Remember, if you are trying to justify CURRENT censorship of "everybody", you'd better do more than point to a very small number of people who, you claim, may eventually carry out what would be a tiny number of comparatively minor attacks.
And what is your definition of "significant numbers'? If we are talking murdered bodies, even one might be called a "significant number". But somehow, to worry most people, you need to show how big the figure is compared with, say, the population of America. Are the number of people that will be killed greater, or less than, the number of people who die yearly falling down stairs at home, by accident? For the year 2000, it was 1307. If it's only 1/10th that number, say 131, it's going to be hard to get people excited.
I>'m not trying to get people excited. I'm just stating the legal fact that conspiracy to commit genocide, ethnic cleansing and to deny human rights is not free speech. It's a crime. Okay, then STOP STOP STOP trying to justify censorship in DNS registration, or advocating that Cloudflare refuse their services to ONE customer, based on the mere future possibility of a crime occurring. Especially when it cannot be shown that a specific website, or a specific customer, is definitely going to be engaging in a crime.
And remember all the people murdered in Chicago yearly. 761 in 2016. https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2016-chicago-murders
Nonsequitur. One dead is too many.
But you can't properly justify an improper action (censorship) without a very close arguable connection between the thing you claim to want to prevent, and the thing you claim should be done to prevent it. You haven't done that. Not even close. Not even a large distance away, in fact. Ever heard of this: "Think of the children!!!" People use various rhetorical tricks to justify things like censorship. You've done that, I think. Go back and re-think what you think must be done, and why. No doubt during eras, and places, where censorship reigns, people develop various justifications for it, illogical ones. Jim Bell
On 09/14/2017 04:31 PM, jim bell wrote:
On Thursday, September 14, 2017, 11:34:08 AM PDT, Marina Brown <catskillmarina@gmail.com> wrote:
On 09/14/2017 03:44 AM, jim bell wrote:
You say that as if we must all already agree that: There are significant numbers of people 'starting planning on murdering whole groups of people...' Give us a few actual examples.
Thankfully it is not significant numbers of people planning genocide. If there were we would be in much more trouble than we are.
You seem to be backing away from your original position. That's progress.
Not really. I am alarmed by the increasing number of people who have gong to the extreme position of advocating wiping people out. I am just hoping that the majority serves as a break on them. And the issue is not numbers here.
Groups like ironmarch, atomwaffen and many on Daily stormer certainly appear to be planning genocide. One does not tag their publication "the most genocidal republican website" if one is not interested in promoting genocide.
People could "plan genocide" by email, Twitter, IRC, Plain Old Telephone System, Fax, Telex (?), TWX (?) smoke signals, semaphore, tin-cans-and-a-string, message-in-a-bottle, or the U.S. mail if they aren't allowed to have websites.
No doubt at all. If the internet was considered a public utility or something like that free speech would be better protected, however planning crimes like genocide would not be. Probably the most dangerous are not publishing anything at all.
...But of course that will be for a judge to decide. Not me.
But I think you were talking about DNS and website registration. What does prosecuting people for "planning genocide" have to do with registering websites? Remember, if you are trying to justify CURRENT censorship of "everybody", you'd better do more than point to a very small number of people who, you claim, may eventually carry out what would be a tiny number of comparatively minor attacks.
No - i am speculating about the possible liability of people knowingly hosting sites planning genocide. And if the desires of ironmarch were to come to fruition it would not be minor at all. Thankfully they don't have much resources other than "mother of satan" and old smoke detectors.
And what is your definition of "significant numbers'? If we are talking murdered bodies, even one might be called a "significant number". But somehow, to worry most people, you need to show how big the figure is compared with, say, the population of America. Are the number of people that will be killed greater, or less than, the number of people who die yearly falling down stairs at home, by accident? For the year 2000, it was 1307. If it's only 1/10th that number, say 131, it's going to be hard to get people excited.
I>'m not trying to get people excited. I'm just stating the legal fact that conspiracy to commit genocide, ethnic cleansing and to deny human rights is not free speech. It's a crime.
Okay, then STOP STOP STOP trying to justify censorship in DNS registration, or advocating that Cloudflare refuse their services to ONE customer, based on the mere future possibility of a crime occurring. Especially when it cannot be shown that a specific website, or a specific customer, is definitely going to be engaging in a crime.
The reason i mentioned ironmarch and atomwaffen is that their members have murdered people. Stormfront members have killed about 100 so far. What i am arguing is that there IS quite possibly a crime occuring when people use these sites to plan genocide. I'm not talking about idle talk. I'm talking about stuff that goes towards planning. I'm quite aware that this argument might lead to the prosecution of Alberto Gonzales, John Yoo and possibly even Alan Dershowitz who have created legal frameworks that could justify torture. Dersh came up with the idea of "Torture warrents". In their case there might be a direct connection with their frameworks and torture. Though i would say - that maybe i should be pushing for enforcement directly of the laws about conspiracy to commit genocide. (thinking)
And remember all the people murdered in Chicago yearly. 761 in 2016. https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2016-chicago-murders
Nonsequitur. One dead is too many.
But you can't properly justify an improper action (censorship) without a very close arguable connection between the thing you claim to want to prevent, and the thing you claim should be done to prevent it. You haven't done that. Not even close. Not even a large distance away, in fact. Ever heard of this: "Think of the children!!!" People use various rhetorical tricks to justify things like censorship. You've done that, I think. Go back and re-think what you think must be done, and why. No doubt during eras, and places, where censorship reigns, people develop various justifications for it, illogical ones.
Good discussion and lots for me to think about. --- Marina
Jim Bell
On 09/14/2017 02:09 PM, Marina Brown wrote:
What i am arguing is that there IS quite possibly a crime occuring when people use these sites to plan genocide. I'm not talking about idle talk. I'm talking about stuff that goes towards planning.
I'm quite aware that this argument might lead to the prosecution of Alberto Gonzales, John Yoo and possibly even Alan Dershowitz who have created legal frameworks that could justify torture. Dersh came up with the idea of "Torture warrents". In their case there might be a direct connection with their frameworks and torture.
Touche' Rr
On 09/13/2017 12:07 PM, Marina Brown quoted Jim Bell:
Sorry, but you are not even hundreds of miles away from being correct on this. To label DNS service, which is essentially monopoly, as supporting "genocide" is about 3-4 leaps of logic, far too much to work. A few nuts spouting nonsense is far, very far, from "conspiracy to commit genocide". Merely providing necessary net services to them, just as is done for thousands of sites, cannot possibly be described that way.
Cmon Jim! You know better! That wing ding at the beginning of the Persian Gulf Invasion? An Annapolis Ham Packet bbs that handled an anti-war message? Remember? The first node IS responsible for content, barring federal intervention/regulation such as declaring a mode of operation or organization, a "Common Carrier". DNSes have NO SUCH IMMUNITY. Rr
On 09/13/2017 02:30 PM, jim bell wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2017, 10:50:40 AM PDT, Marina Brown <catskillmarina@gmail.com> wrote:
On 09/13/2017 07:04 AM, John Young wrote:
The Terrifying Power of Internet Censors
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/13/opinion/cloudflare-daily-stormer-charlott...
Terrifying!
I have a feeling that Internet Registrars and Cloudflare are doing this
for their own legal protection.
I have a feeling that you are inventing reasoning that would be, in itself, illogical and quite stilted. Sure, deluded people exist, but organizations who are in control of such things have a responsibility to not abuse their authority.
Yes - i am only speculating, but there are lawyers out there who have brought up the possible charge. I spoke with one of them recently.
It's long established law that conspiracy to commit genocide, ethnic cleansing and to violate the human rights of groups of people is a crime. Creating the theoretical framework for genocide is also a crime as was evidenced by the conviction of Julius Streicher who authored Daily Stormer's predescessor Der Sturmer.
It's Cloudflare and Registrars protecting themselves from being complicit in human rights crimes.
And you know what. I don't blame them. I wouldn't piss on Andrew Anglin if he was on fire.
Sorry, but you are not even hundreds of miles away from being correct on this. To label DNS service, which is essentially monopoly, as supporting "genocide" is about 3-4 leaps of logic, far too much to work. A few nuts spouting nonsense is far, very far, from "conspiracy to commit genocide". Merely providing necessary net services to them, just as is done for thousands of sites, cannot possibly be described that way. Maybe you just have no respect for the concept of "Free Speech".
Jim Bell
I am concerned about the market monopoly of DNS service ...but
This is not about speech. It is about people conspiring to commit genocide, ethnic cleansing and to remove peoples human rights.
I am quoting law used in Neuremburg. ...The same law that was used to convict Julius Streicher.
You cannot simultaneously enguage in free speech and a conspiracy to commit genocide. One is permitted, one is a crime.
...Unless you want to redefine free speech to include criminal conspiracy.
We can oppose monopolies like DNS TLD without defending conspiracy to commit genocide.
On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 05:08:10PM -0700, Razer wrote:
On 09/13/2017 12:07 PM, Marina Brown quoted Jim Bell:
Sorry, but you are not even hundreds of miles away from being correct on this. To label DNS service, which is essentially monopoly, as supporting "genocide" is about 3-4 leaps of logic, far too much to work. A few nuts spouting nonsense is far, very far, from "conspiracy to commit genocide". Merely providing necessary net services to them, just as is done for thousands of sites, cannot possibly be described that way.
Cmon Jim! You know better! That wing ding at the beginning of the Persian Gulf Invasion? An Annapolis Ham Packet bbs that handled an anti-war message? Remember?
The first node IS responsible for content, barring federal intervention/regulation such as declaring a mode of operation or organization, a "Common Carrier". DNSes have NO SUCH IMMUNITY.
"Precedent" may possibly be on your side IDK. But dude, how's it like shilling for Godaddy and extra-judicial "justice"? Of course I don't expect much else from you these days...
On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 15:07:07 -0400 Marina Brown <catskillmarina@gmail.com> wrote:
This is not about speech. It is about people conspiring to commit genocide, ethnic cleansing and to remove peoples human rights.
I'm eagerly waiting for the piece of american fascist shit "marina brown" to comment on all the human rights violations and genocide that his government commits on a daily basis. Of course, "marina brown" is just the typical US government agent working as 'activist' in the 'hacker' 'space' whose job description is to spout US military propaganda. I mean, what the fuck. Seriously. A piece of shit defending US government censorship in the name of "human rights". It can't get any more deranged than that?
On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 13:51:43 -0400 Marina Brown <catskillmarina@gmail.com> wrote:
It's long established law that conspiracy to commit genocide, ethnic cleansing and to violate the human rights of groups of people is a crime.
can we cut the nazi propaganda coming from the fucking, nazi US government? you pieces of nazi shit pretending to be the 'good' guys is both incredibly tiring and incredibly revolting - not to mention incredibly stupid.
It's Cloudflare and Registrars protecting themselves from being complicit in human rights crimes.
^^^^ cosmic amount of unintentional self-parody
Big corps, big gov't, there's really no difference. When any small group of actors can pick winner and losers it's a dangerous thing. Prince even realizes this: Last week, Matthew Prince, Cloudflare’s chief executive, acknowledged how much power his company has, and what’s at stake. “The internet is a really important resource for everyone,” he said in an interview with [TechCrunch](https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/17/cloudflare-ceo-calls-for-a-system-to-regul...), “but there’s a very limited set of companies that control it and there’s such little accountability to us that it really is quite a dangerous thing.” Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email.
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: NY Times Op-Ed Blasts Cloudflare for Daily Stormer Terror Local Time: September 13, 2017 5:04 AM UTC Time: September 13, 2017 11:04 AM From: jya@pipeline.com To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org
The Terrifying Power of Internet Censors
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/13/opinion/cloudflare-daily-stormer-charlott...
Terrifying!
I stand corrected. I conflated GoDaddy's rationale with Cloudflare's CEO statement:
Earlier today, Cloudflare terminated the account of the Daily Stormer. We've stopped proxying their traffic and stopped answering DNS requests for their sites. We've taken measures to ensure that they cannot sign up for Cloudflare's services ever again.
Our terms of service reserve the right for us to terminate users of our network at our sole discretion. The tipping point for us making this decision was that the team behind Daily Stormer made the claim that we were secretly supporters of their ideology.
Our team has been thorough and have had thoughtful discussions for years about what the right policy was on censoring. Like a lot of people, we’ve felt angry at these hateful people for a long time but we have followed the law and remained content neutral as a network. We could not remain neutral after these claims of secret support by Cloudflare.
https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/ ...and I stand by what I said on another thread about an overweening reason DNS's take an incredible risk hosting Sturmer crap:
On 09/13/2017 12:07 PM, Marina Brown quoted Jim Bell:
Sorry, but you are not even hundreds of miles away from being correct on this. To label DNS service, which is essentially monopoly, as supporting "genocide" is about 3-4 leaps of logic, far too much to work. A few nuts spouting nonsense is far, very far, from "conspiracy to commit genocide". Merely providing necessary net services to them, just as is done for thousands of sites, cannot possibly be described that way.
Cmon Jim! You know better! That wing ding at the beginning of the Persian Gulf Invasion? An Annapolis Ham Packet bbs that handled an anti-war message? Remember?
The first node IS responsible for content, barring federal intervention/regulation such as declaring a mode of operation or organization, a "Common Carrier". DNSes have NO SUCH IMMUNITY.
Rr
On 09/12/2017 07:05 PM, Razer wrote:
On 09/12/2017 02:54 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
Feel free to continue to be obtuse, I'm not being obtuse. I'm cutting right to the chase.
Rr
Zenaan Harkness:
Godaddy's in-house survey monkey just hit me up. Thought it was a good time to express their lack of advising themselves in regard to the impact to their public image when they took a stand against TDS:
- Why did you rate Godaddy the way you just did (low)? Godaddy took a stand against freedom of speech in rejecting TheDailyStormer.com's (TDS) domain registration, and GoDaddy did so in a way which failed to uphold one of our community's foundational freedoms.
When undermining a fundamental human right, as Godaddy did to TDS, even if your target is speaking objectionably, Godaddy as an "information carrier" (of sorts) has a significantly higher duty of care to its customers (e.g. TDS) than other entities.
Godaddy, in cancelling TDS' domain, failed to conduct itself in a way compatible with its duty of care obligations to our community to treat every body fairly and in a way which preserves due process.
Godaddy should advise itself to inform itself of the requirements for conduct in relation to those of its customers who say things on their websites which Godaddy may object to.
- What is the single most important thing we could do to improve your experience? Advise yourself that when you take a public stand against freedom of speech (even objectionable speech), you are affecting your reputation negatively, in a big way. Due to the TDS episode, my plans are to transition completely off of Godaddy in the coming 2 years.
I dumped godaddy around 15 yrs ago when they lost my business site and refused to find it. i went to another host and namecheap. f godaddy.
participants (10)
-
3ch0_3ch0 -
James -
jim bell -
John Young -
juan -
Marina Brown -
Razer -
rooty -
x9p -
Zenaan Harkness