This is especially good for those who think government exists to 'serve' them and is their 'servant.' Maybe this will make them wake up to the reality of who is actually the servant (slave). ;)
Always good to keep the following quote often attributed to Voltaire in mind : "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Google is not preventing the Daily Stormer from spewing their swill. They aren't interfering with the Daily Stormer's rights in any way. They're just refusing to support the Daily Stormer on their commercial platform. In that, Google is well within their rights. The Daily Stormer is capable of taking their business elsewhere.
Of course Google has that right. I question whether it will have the intended effect, though. Pretty sure isolating extremists tends to cause further extremism.
No, isolating the communities from which extremists are drawn causes further extremism, isolating extremists does not.
There is a challenge in isolating extremists while not isolating (and, indeed, productively engaging) the communities from which members are radicalized, and quite often brute-force efforts to isolate extremists (especially ones keying on race, nationality, and religion) end up isolating the feeder communities with the extremists, which is about the worst possible outcome.
Actually they are not. Once a domain is transferred it has a 60 day lock on it and can't be transferred to another registrar. It can only be transferred back to the losing registrar if there is some of accident or other clearly defined reason. This is to prevent people from shifting domains around primarily to avoid IP enforcement or UDRP problems.
Honestly this is a terrible precedent they have here. I am surprised they are doing this (if true and hence why I questioned the entire story) because it puts them at a disadvantage in future cases as far as 'why didn't you stop xyz domain registration that is now responsible for my child's death after I wrote to you and put you on notice'.
The fact that they were evicted from Go Daddy and only briefly (an hour) registered with Google is really the Daily Stormer's problem akin to your shifting domains around to avoid IP enforcement example.
The more Google chooses what content is hosted on their platforms, the less authentic their claims of independence from the content and the more liability to which they should be exposed.
The funny thing about hate speech is that no one can make a unanimous conclusion for what hate speech is.
Nowadays hate speech is a euphamism for any idea or opinion someone doesn't like, so the term hate speech has lost its meaning. It now means using gender pronouns to refer to people, using gendered job names, saying that men and women are born with different brains, saying that there's only 2 genders, saying that feminism is cancer, saying there's a link between islam and terrorism, saying that black people underachieve in society due to genetics instead of the evil racist oppressive white male - and much more.
> Would it be a "unanimous" conclusion if it were a conclusion drawn by a singular person or entity?
Which singular person or entity should be responsible for determining what "hate speech" is? According to SJWiki I am a neurosexist for believing that men and women have different brains and that gender is not a social construct. Should SJWiki be trusted? According to the ADL, Gavin McInnes and Mike Cernovich are hate preachers. Should the ADL be trusted?
> Do you have an example of this being identified as hate speech?
Also it's a slippery slope because once the "hate speech" clampdown happens, we'll then be punished for microaggressions, so even if you're not a racist, you'll be seen as racist for asking what race or ethnicity someone is?
This is not offering your house for it. That would be if google was actually hosting their site on its servers. In this case it's a domain pointing to their content. As a registrar Google is serving the public and I doubt you can deny someone this service in a moral sense. Can a doctor deny to treat them if they end up in his office for serious injuries?
What if all registrars deny them, is it morally right to effectively erase them from the internet for simply expressing their thoughts?
"Having made that decision we now need to talk about why it is so dangerous. I’ll be posting something on our blog later today. Literally, I woke up in a bad mood and decided someone shouldn’t be allowed on the Internet. No one should have that power."
http://gizmodo.com/cloudflare-ceo-on-terminating-service-to-...
But does that involve expending your resources allowing them to?
Also, isn't this Google/GoDaddy expressing THEIR speech by removing users who violate their TOS? Remember, GoDaddy was ok with hosting the site until an article defaming the woman who died on Saturday started making the rounds.
The references seem to try and poke holes into our current understanding of evolution (and I agree it's still very incomplete) and suggest that an alien arrival is the best reasonable explanation to fill the gaps. I'm not sure that's very convincing.
What's even less plausible is an alien visitor, having all the technology necessary to get to earth, somehow needing humans for the purely physical task of extracting metals. I mean we ourselves are now almost capable of automating mining yet haven't made it past our very own moon.
I would also like to add Ease of Use to your list.
I have had to help several of my Patrons with basic tech support issues, like setting up RSS feeds in their podcast app. And I doubt that they would be able/comfortable with working with a service that is not as easy and straight forward as Patreon.
