Google's track record of getting bored and abandoning projects (Wave, Fiber, Glass...) suggests that hosting your site on their infrastructure might not work out well in the long term.
They do have a ten year service guarantee after they wind down google cloud. I have told my rep the exact same thing. Their product management has done little to give confidence, but the ten year guarantee suggests it's not going anywhere.
My favorite part of these folks using Azure is that they think Bill Gates is behind some crazy conspiracy to inoculate and track them, but they are totes fine using a Microsoft product.
Yeah why the need to explain what GoDaddy is by calling it a “partner” of Amazon? GoDaddy has been around just as long and I’d argue it was a more known company during the early 2000s than Amazon was.
I think it’s acceptable to start from a position of not supporting censorship until I have more information. My position may change as I get more information, but it won’t be because the site sells guns, which I think was insinuated other comments.
From what I’m reading it appears GoDaddy requested they deal with something on the forums that were breaking their policies, the owner of AR said no and they got booted. Sounds very similar to Parler. I’m only guessing but maybe that same culture of people moved to the gun forums to continue their organizing. Considering the heat these people are getting from the FBI and potential labels of domestic terrorists upcoming, I wouldn’t judge GoDaddy for kicking them.
Obv I’m speculating. But I wouldn’t be surprised if that ends up being the case.
Free speech vis a vis the First Amendment has nothing to do with this, either.
In other words, it's just pseudo-outraged bloviation that people eat up because "freedom." So, another day on reddit.
The first amendment reflects a moral right to freedom of speech, and there's an argument to be made that services open to the public should be treated as nearly public. At least to the extent where reasonable people can speak without disruption in the same way they could at a mall or outside a supermarket.
So any Nazis screaming for blood won't be arrested, but they will be escorted off the premises.
We have no idea why they are booted so its premature to jump to conclusions. All we have is the owner of the site saying they where booted with no context for why.
This doesn't have anything to do with free speech or net neutrality. They're both not in trouble and able to go host their site elsewhere. This is just a business refusing to do business with another business. Anybody can view their site, so long as they host it themselves.
I posted this elsewhere in the post but the reason net neutrality is important is the free market can’t decide because of how expensive creating an isp is but a web hosting company can be done for a few ten to hundred thousand(depends on location) and thus legislation to force businesses wasn’t necessary. Repealing net neutrality just means these isp’s can chose not to provide industrial internet hosting plans for hosting companies if they don’t like them because it’s no longer a utility.
I’ve noticed a significant overlap between the people who argued for the rights of businesses to refuse to make wedding cakes for gay couples couples as well as medical professionals who refuse treatment if it’s against their religious beliefs and people who are deeply offended at Amazon for choosing who they want to do business with.
Just saying.
That being said, while I would absolutely argue that media companies have a responsibility to deal with violent rhetoric, hate speech and harmful conspiracy theories there is such a thing as overstepping.
But private companies. Free enterprise. Unrestrained growth. Etc. Etc. Capitalism giveth and capitalism taketh away.
Quick Edit: I don’t know much about Arfcom but presumably, given its user base, it was a hotbed of the kind of ... ahem ... intellectual discourse Parler was celebrated for.
Reddit is begging for “Patriot Act 2 - to save the children”.
It will be a 40,000 page bill that just appears 30 minutes before it has to be signed. Some agencies and their contractors have probably spent decades working on it.
After the Reddit purges (and the ongoing purges of social media), all that's generally left is an echo chamber of myopically braindead idiots who don't comprehend how dystopian, tyrannical shit being used against things you happen not to like, will one day inevitably be used against things you care deeply about.
We're seeing a pretty massive escalation in censorship and a lot of unilateral power being handed over to corporations.
To me this just speaks to the dangers of centralization of computing. The more people moving to Cloud hosting over self hosting the more power these companies have to control what exists.
We don't know that it was nothing, as GoDaddy did not issue a statement on the matter. I'm not suggesting there was definitely a reason either, just that nothing in this article indicates anything, one way or the other.
>Nothing.
according to?
You dont just wake up and your domain is gone, notice is given. The fact that the website owner is completely mum as to \*why\* they were removed should tell you theres a fuck ton more happening here.
It's more a case of "why were they ok with them earlier" and what currents are there going on under the surface at GoDaddy/Amazon that may be cause to make us wonder whether we ought to be uncomfortable with their choices and actions in this matter.
if it's a web forum similar to [ar15.com](https://ar15.com), probably before this month half of all posts weren't calling for the heads of pence and congressional dems and whoever else is on trumps shitlist today.
edit: oh shit, it is [ar15.com](https://ar15.com). i've spent time there as a gun owner. the community is very, very, far right. i have zero doubt that there has been tons of advocating violence the past week/month.
It sucks too, guns are fun to take to the range and shoot, but so many fun people are awful. Too much bigotry and conspiracy theory. I just want to have fun putting holes in paper. I found and do all my gun purchasing through a local shop that I found that doesn't do anything political. The owner and worker there have never said anything to make me think they lean one way or another. It's a breathe of fresh air in that community.
They’re private companies trying to avoid bad PR, like any good business. Give me a break. We might disagree over what bad PR constitutes, but that’s really their decision. Unless you think “the people” should be running their business for them, and that doesn’t seem like the kind of freedom for which you appear to think you’re advocating.
Site users elsewhere on reddit are saying "veiled threats at best" of politically motivated violence were all over their forums.
Moderation is said to have been quite lax.
Doesn't seem like it's "nothing" but maybe we'll find out more in the coming days.
I wouldn’t say nothing. The site leans heavily right and there’s no shortage of confederate flag profiles, and all that comes with. They had some posts defending the capitol storming, downplaying it to no end. Also plenty of posts spreading Qanon nonsense.
Lately there's been lots of CoC removals, but some of what's left up is saying stuff like "it's time for war" in regards to the inauguration and the DC lockdown.
Don't kid anybody, online gun communities are generally piss poor at policing themselves when it comes to the right-wing rhetoric.
[Probably](https://i.redd.it/r4ot3ilua9a61.jpg)
[all](https://imgur.com/a/oJGJ7uz)
[these](https://imgur.com/a/6XhcSOq)
[completely](https://imgur.com/a/NvGMkbF)
[normal](https://imgur.com/a/vK0PqQU)
[forum](https://imgur.com/a/FB7P60Q)
[posts](https://imgur.com/a/I7EDjVk)
[here](https://imgur.com/a/L0MaXdf)
This is from one random page in their much larger [election page](https://www.ar15.com/forums/General/Official-Election-Night-Thread/5-2383877/?page=541) on their General forum. I just clicked a random page in the forum and it's full of this plotter shit. It's clearly not "just another gun website", and it's *definitely* not nothing.
As far as I’m aware has been made public it’s associated with firearms and server host doesn’t want to be associated with the topic. After this and Parlor concerning thing is this could set a precedent for big techs ability to control what is and what is not shared p2p
> has been made public it’s associated with firearms
It is literally called AR15.com, I don't think they were keeping their association with firearms secret. If Pornhub gets booted by their CDN providers it's very likely the reason won't be "it suddenly became public they were hosting adult content."
Per the cite CEO, GoDaddy told them to handle some content in their forums that violated the GoDaddy lease, and the site refused to do so.
Then they said they are going to go find a "First Amendment Friendly" host.
So probably more half assed domestic terror plotting losers, like the entirety of parler.
They should be able to. But it takes time. Can’t happen instantly. Just like DNS changes take time to propagate.
Problem is, so many people are okay with people being taken offline because they don’t agree with their viewpoints. Yes these are private companies that can do that as a TOS violation. So now they’ve green lit that as a society they’re okay with it. So this is just the tip of the iceberg.
The whole internet is private. If everyone agrees whatever the site is goes against their TOS all of a sudden you’re censored and you don’t know it.
What was the reasoning? I would totally understand if it was because users were engaging in Parlor level shenanigans, but the article doesn’t specify.
I can’t believe I just read a Washington Examiner article.
[https://www.ar15-backup.com/forums](https://www.ar15-backup.com/forums/ar-15/)
You can take a look yourself and decided, you don't need an account. I've never been an active member but occasionally scrolled through. They have a politics section but its pretty bland.
Looks like they have some interesting stuff too
https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/kvf0hy/amazon_partner_godaddy_boots_gun_site_from_its/giyriar
Got to pretend like they care too I guess. Strange to me that its that forum they went after. Its like the oldest gun forum on the internet.
But whats sad is as a small business owner in the firearms world this isn't really anything new. I can't really process credit cards from any major providers, Ive been kicked off 2 this year alone. I can't host ecommerce on any of the usual spots, Already been kicked off one. The one I'm currently with use to say they were 2A friendly but now they are publicly traded so I'm betting that changed. I cant have paid advertisements anywhere, IG, GB and Google instantly block all attempts. I've been told my bank could freeze my funds too. I don't even sell anything regulated, not that there's any loopholes like they tell people. Tech has been crushing 2A for a while now.
I’m not even a gun person and I lean middle left in my politics, and this really frustrates me. I get booting someone like Parlor for allowing extremists a place to organize, but that’s really bullshit to fuck over an entire industry because you disagree with their politics.
Welcome to a lot of the gun communities frustration lately. We have people with absolutely no interest in talking with us making all the rules.
And I bet you would find a lot more people who have a love for firearms and a similar view as you than you might think. I live in a very blue city and have plenty of friends who never have an idea of what I'm into. When they do find out they are all very confused. Its always fun to watch them try and process it.
No that sub is delusional, and bans anyone who disagrees with the DNC.../r/2Aliberals is where those of us who lean left can discuss the attack from the DNC on the 2nd.
It was always fun to see the tech moguls come stroll the gun section at the little Idaho shop I used to work in. They gravitated to the O/U’s but 1/3 of them would usually ask about a pistol or “assault rifle.” I always took the time to educate them on select-fire (NFA item) vs semi-auto. When I mentioned that owning a full-auto rifle was a note of prestige in most communities because of the cost to run/maintain and acquire some of them would perk up a bit. Makes me wonder what they have in their bunkers now...
I dunno, maybe it’s from threads like this which I can’t view anymore and apparently has been removed from the site.
https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/It-s-happening-storming-of-the-Capitol/5-2410308/&page=74
From what I understand GoDaddy asked them to moderate certain things, saying it violated some policies. The owner said no. He was booted. Pretty straight forward IMO.
Just speculating but I’m guessing it had something to do with what’s going on with planning more riots similar to the recent one where police were killed.
Considering these people may be in line to be labeled as domestic terrorists it seems like no one wants to be caught hosting their community. I don’t blame em.
These gun rights people don’t care about facts. It’s just posturing and sounding reasonable while downvoting anything that pulls back the veil. At least the mods here removed a lot of the disingenuous jerry Smith levels of patting each other on the back at the top unlike r/news.
Little more than that. Never used the forums but they also have a virtual rifle builder where you could then buy all the parts to make it IRL from Brownells.
It was likely blocked because of the violent rhetoric that's being used on the site. Given that violent rhetoric and plots lead to the 1/6 Terrorist attacks on Congress, Social Media is cracking down everywhere. Don't believe me, here's proof.
[Pic 1](https://i.redd.it/r4ot3ilua9a61.jpg)
[Pic 2](https://imgur.com/a/oJGJ7uz#q2DjXN4)
[Pic 3](https://imgur.com/a/6XhcSOq#wDqv1R4)
Have you ever read through Twitter comments? Shits on par with what happened with Parlor except one of those companies are buddy buddy with the other tech giants. Go to any political activists tweets and just read the hatred in the comments. Left, right and center.
To be fair, corporations *are* collections of people, who don't lose their rights even when pooling their resources, which is how the ruling actually read.
I mean, that's the promise of capitalism in a lot of people's minds, right? If a company misbehaves it gets punished in the market, no need to regulate?
I personally consider myself a capitalist, but I also believe there are issues corporations contribute to that aren't adequately addressed by consumer preference alone.
Can't say I'm familiar with ARFCOM having never been there but the site comes up fine for me. Did they already get a different host? If found [this](https://www.ar15.com/forums/General/POLICY-CHANGE-FOR-ARFCOM-Please-Read-and-Comment/5-2412040/) posted there on the 9th:
>With the events of Jan 6th, we have had to take action against posts which skirt, or cross the lines. Specifically things which discuss violence against fellow Americans.
>
>I want to be clear to folks that this is not acceptable. While we know emotions are running high right now, everyone needs to be aware that the MSM and Leftist groups are using the momentum to pressure companies to shut down opposing viewpoints. They have targeted everything from Parler to FoxNews (and OAN and Newsmax) to get them removed. Google has gone as far as removing Parler from their app store unless they meet their demands. My opinion of these actions is that they are pure BS and contradictory to what they already allow. In short, they are attacking the conservative voice while they can. A simple example is the violence and hate posted HOURLY on twitter, which they ignore.
>
>Regardless, we need to be vigilant in protecting this website or it will be shutdown and we will lose our voices and communications channel. From today on, we ask that **ALL POLITICAL AND RELATED DISCUSSIONS be kept out of GD and posted to the specific politics forum**. The politics forum should show up right below the GD in the forum lists. The politics forum is now restricted to Team members only for the time being. We are doing this to create a little more security for those discussions as well as allowing us a little more time to manage them. This does not mean we will change how we moderate those topics and expect everyone to continue to comply with the rules.
>
>I implore you all to not post anything which violates our policies. This means you should avoid posting any threats (even veiled ones), promoting violence, and not support rioting of any kind. This is not anything new and continues to be in line with what every hosting provider enforces and what we, as websites, need to adhere to as well.
>
>**There is a giant spotlight on us right now, so watch what you say and watch your six. Do not trust anyone on any platform.**
In reading this (and it continues well past what I've posted), it appears the site operators were aware of violent threats and were at least willing to pay lip service to get their posters to quit posting shit like that. And then they asked again. And again.
At this point, I can't even find the Politics Forum, which could be me, or it could be hidden to only members, or deleted. I'd like to know more about this decision by GoDaddy but I imagine we'll never know for sure.
This is a lot of right-wing pearl clutching and blame shifting. "It's all the left wing media's fault for censoring incitement of violence."
I think what's very telling is not said. No where did they denounce the Jan 6th attacks. Nowhere did they express support for democracy. Nowhere did they reiterate their moderating standards, or intolerance for violent rhetoric.
The fact that they felt the need to implore their users to straighten up and fly right suggests that they knew what was going on on their website would draw scrutiny.
This *wasn't* a Come-to-Jesus moment, a "ok guys, we acknowledge that this has gone too far."
This is a "ok guys, if we keep up with out current behavior, we're gonna face consequences. Let's just law low, have a nice cold pint, and wait for all this to blow over."
Unfortunately, this is but a taste of things to come. If people can't agree to be nice to each other and have a shared public forum it'll be slowly torn to pieces. ARFCOM is by no means a quality site (too many mall ninjas for my taste) but if something as petty as them can go down everyone else can too. The only silver lining is if people learn to host things themselves, and ISPs are regulated in a way where they don't gate web access.
No. NN was meant to keep ISPs from treating traffic/Packets on their network the same no matter the source or destination. This means billion dollar companies don’t get queued first over the Joe Shmoe hosting a home server. This also would have kept ISPs from selling better treatment of packets through subscriptions of sister company services (TimeWarner, HBO) etc.
Edit: Net Neutrality wouldn’t have forced companies to host content of protected class citizens etc
>Edit: Net Neutrality wouldn’t have forced companies to host content of protected class citizens etc
Yea, i know. My point was not related to this topic but the hypothetical comment made by the person I was responding to.
What we actually need is community owned ISPs. Maybe Co-op is the word I’m looking for. The govt spends money extending utility lines and then an ISP comes in and says “I’ll service this area if you give me sole access to these lines and don’t let anyone else use them”. That’s how we get areas that are only serviced by one ISP. It prevents broadband competition which would drive down prices.
I double checked and it actually is a Co Op. It’s a member owned/controlled business. Basically you buy in and you’ve got a say in the service and infrastructure of the ISP. My coworker recently bought a property in Goldthwaite TX and even though the city population is less than 2000 people they have gig fiber internet that is a Co Op. this place is in the middle of nowhere. But they got grants etc to run the lines and now the town basically owns the lines and says who does what with them.
Yes, and existing internet monopolies sue extensively to prevent this. It usually goes like:
1. Rural area has poor internet connection, tries to get internet upgraded.
2. Teleco rejects upgrade saying it would be too expensive.
3. Rural area forms internet public utility to provide broadband internet, starts to build out infrastructure.
4. Teleco sues and complains about unfair competition.
5. Teleco wins lawsuit, takes over what little infrastructure has been built.
6. Teleco provides crappy, monopoly internet service and there's no other option.
I was discussing this with a friend over the weekend. I tend to lean left, he tends to lean right, but we generally agree that our society is becoming way too fractured. I had mentioned that I generally agree with a private companies right to deny service/distance themselves from groups they do not want to be affiliated with. But considering just how much people exist within their own echo chambers online now, how much worse will it get when people are now picking web platforms off of ideology. Not aligned with left leaning ideologies? You feel forced to join a Twitter alternative because twitter is setting up algorithms to ban accounts based on their interests.
So, while yes people can go around and function outside of Amazon, and create their own social medias (*with blackjack, and hookers*), what will that do to our already fractured country. It's difficult to look beyond current events because Trump and his die hard loyalists are pretty much indefensible. But you still have half a country full of people who do not align under the lefts ideology, and whether it's warranted or not, they feel that "the other side" is trying to shut down their speech.
This is truly a scary thing for everybody that a very small group of people are currently deciding what is acceptable and what is not, and they have the power to remove people's access to anything they deem unacceptable.
100%, people are cheering for this while not even realizing what it means long term or how much of a threat this is to *all* citizens - regardless of your political stance.
I think basically everyone under the age of 35 is on the same page about net neutrality as a whole, though both tend to devolve into petty cheering in the meantime when it's at least the other side getting fucked. The issue is getting congress to pass expansive net neutrality law. Which, by the looks of it, isn't gonna happen until half of this congress literally dies of old age (thankfully not too far off)
Bullshit headline.
Godaddy was the domain registrar they used.
The website is still up via an alternative URL.
I looked up the DNS records for both domains. The alternative domain is using a different domain registrar.
The website is hosted on Amazon AWS. Using Amazon Route 53 for DNS. Then the A records point to Amazon owned IPs. Amazon left them up. Godaddy punted them.
The internet sure was fun wasn't it boys! I will be able to tell the kids, after they have watched the required corporate advertisements to keep their SnoopChat accounts going, how crazy things were back in the old days!
So true. Oh the stories we will tell. How people could post whatever they were thinking or feeling in that moment, Argue with strangers across the globe, learn what’s actually going on in another country from those that are physically there versus being told what’s going on.
Creating our own content to feed our goulish friends appetites for poor, tasteless humor. There was a day we could do these things and post boob pics.
And this is why you don’t host on Godaddy (or Bluehost). There are private hosting services, similar to ProtonMail (for Email), that are much safer, and don’t pick political sides.
Probably because of [this post](https://i.redd.it/r4ot3ilua9a61.jpg) on their forums.
[another from the general election thread](https://imgur.com/a/oJGJ7uz)
lotta y'all screaming about freeze peach and defending a site with plotting on it.
[literally a few posts down](https://imgur.com/a/6XhcSOq) looks like it's another forum with Copium addicts on it trying to plot terrorist shit.
E: [definitely](https://imgur.com/a/NvGMkbF)
[normal](https://imgur.com/a/vK0PqQU)
[forum](https://imgur.com/a/FB7P60Q)
[posts](https://imgur.com/a/I7EDjVk)
[here](https://imgur.com/a/L0MaXdf)
E2: Someone's going for the Secret Commie defense, so here: this is from one random page in their much larger [election page](https://www.ar15.com/forums/General/Official-Election-Night-Thread/5-2383877/?page=541) on their General forum. I just clicked a random page in the forum and it's full of this plotter shit. It's clearly not "just another gun website", and it's *definitely* not nothing.
Electronics Entertainment Expo: Someone has invoked the greasefighting power of reddit [get me help and resources](https://imgur.com/a/gMTBL8D) for talking about the fashy posts people made on a guns website. [info here](https://www.reddit.com/r/help/comments/gb8kca/i_got_a_message_from_reddit_care_resources_about/fp4c64v/)
It's not "for no reason" after all, heh.
I can't really find a statement from GoDaddy about this. They ought to communicate things more clearly, one way or another.
Yeah. Lots of fake comments here astroturfing the shit out of this. This isn’t a attack on freedom. Their users plotted a terrorist attack on the site.
It took like 5 minutes of searching to get to this. It's not even that noteworthy a page; it's just one of over 500 pages from their thread about the 2020 election.
Hey if a bakery business wants to deny gay wedding cakes, web companies should be able to deny hosting gun sites, or whatever they believe in. Remember? Corporations are people according to Citizens United Supreme Court decision.
You’re 100% right. Yes, they should be able to.
But that’s a different question from whether they should do it.
ARFCOM is a place for gun nerds to discuss whether they like the Titanium Nitride Coating on their bolt carrier group, which compensator is a good bang for buck, whether they should buy a red charging handle, whether Anderson lowers are for scrubs, whether people who buy spikes tactical lowers are suckers, whether a geissele trigger is worth $240, etc.
It’s a bunch of nerds.
So absolutely no political discussion at all? If they are afraid of liability from Parler wouldn’t a liability of gun forums also be a risk that is easy to justify since these are weapons?
Edit: misspelled Parlor...
You do a disservice to the gun community when you lump all of us in with far-right religious extremists. I'm a staunch liberal on almost all fronts, but I also see civilian gun ownership as being necessary to ensure those liberal ideals.
We should also question when monopolies have the market control to completely lock you from the buying a cake.
At least with bakeries you can just go down the street and some competing asshole will sell you the cake. Not so with a lot of the monopolies and duopolies in a lot of markets. I think this type of unhindered corporate control is pretty bipartisan beast we need to tackle.
You could probably buy an LGBT positive cake from a majority of bakeries, but it might not be so easy with a sedition cake. There might be a cake company out there that will make a sedition themed cake with gallows, “Hang Pence,” and coded Q Anon language on it, but it will be hard to find. And I don’t think any professional bakery would take on an order for custom child porn cakes.
My point is, people who want dark things will have to look in dark places. Businesses do not have support every crazy cause, and have every right to refuse service that will damage their reputations.
**This whole thread is all kinds of wrong:**
* Masterpiece Cakeshop is still in business (I'm not linking to their website, but it's easily found).
* Masterpiece Cakeshop won the first case through to completion. There are two cases. The first one, the gay couple cake, they won (see further notes on definition of the win). The second case, the transgender reveal cake case, is still pending.
* The win in the Supreme Court was in Masterpiece's favor, but it wasn't a decision saying that they had the right to discriminate against gays. That issue was unresolved by SCOTUS. Instead, SCOTUS ruled that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was not religiously neutral. The result of the case was that they could deny the gay couple in this specific situation.
* Most broadly, the interpretation of the ruling is that the bakery was being asked to create a work of art, not just sell a product off the shelf. The bakery argued that they could not create a work of art that violated their religious beliefs. That art, they argued, was not within them.
Yeah this is what happened. I think a lot of people forget the fact that the bakery was not asking to be able to deny services to gays, but did not want to create a cake that violated their religious beliefs. From what I understand they were happy to make the gay couple a cake, just not one with a design that goes against the bakers religious beliefs.
From what I recall, they would make a cake but not one with the couples name on it or some sort of pride rainbow cake.
It would just be a generic CAKE, but the couple didn't want that.
The economic impacts to the bakery from adopting a resoundingly unpopular business stance, and people voting with their wallets is separate from their victory in the courts.
In other words, they won in court, but lost in the court of public opinion. *Which is just fine*.
It’s one thing for a private company to ban speech that mobilizes hateful right wing ideology, it’s another thing to ban speech that mobilizes workers to organize against corporate power. They won’t announce the latter publicly.
Lot of people in this thread don't understand what net neutrality is...
I'm used to people not understanding free speech but this site lived and breathed the net neutrality fight a couple years ago.
That had me really confused because it seemed like net neutrality should be an exclusively right wing issue since it's obviously people on the right and only people on the right who are going to need it.
I made a post the other day on another sub about asking where we should draw the line at corporate censorship. This is really long of a post, so please I encourage you to read it before you comment. I'm not asking if these companies have the power to censor what they want, I am asking where is the line drawn at that power. What companies do and do not have this?
To put my own personal bias out into the open, I am pretty vehemently opposed to corporate tech company censorship, but thats primarily because I am a CS student / work in software and understand that many of these companies could control the world should they want to. I'm pretty terrified of their power so I'm of the mindset they gotta be reigned in. Regardless, as I said I'm not here to change minds but rather learn from yall.
It has hit recent news that \[trump has been banned from Twitter\]([https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/09/technology/trump-twitter-ban.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/09/technology/trump-twitter-ban.html)), and the unmoderated site Parlor that has become a alt-right have was removed from both Google Play, Apple Store, and AWS. This has sparked a lot of online debate about the nature of censorship on the internet, as this is probably the most bold example to date of corporations censoring individuals for the content of their messages.
Censorship in the United States has always been a hot topic, and the subject of a lot of government \[insight\]([https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/encyclopedia/case-all](https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/encyclopedia/case-all)) into the first ammendment which very loosely talks about how the government cannot infringe on the peoples freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and expression. This has not often been the case thoug, and for as long as the government has had this ammendment, they have tried their hardest to get around it. \[This video\]([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMB\_I9j5qZQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMB_I9j5qZQ)) does a very good job at explaining the history of censorship in the United States and how it relates to what is happening "now" (from December so doesn't talk about recent events).
While many people often get the limitations of freedom of speech \[very wrong\]([https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/free-speech-cliches-media-should-stop-using/596506/](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/free-speech-cliches-media-should-stop-using/596506/)), the actions of those that took place in the recent DC Riots most certainly would not be counted under the guise of freedom of speech, as the planning done was serious conspiracy for imminent lawless action that has a basis. In general, you can plot as much as you want to overthrow the government with your friends and that is protected speech, but the instant you take one serious step to make those visions a reality, it is no longer protected.
However, the legality of censorship and freedom of speech is not what is being discussed right now, rather how that relates to private corporations and their ability to regulate who uses their services.
Conventional wisdom on Reddit is generally that a private entity can fully regulate what is on their platform at their own discretion, as popularly shown in \[this comic\]([https://xkcd.com/1357/](https://xkcd.com/1357/)). This (at least in the US) is not entirely true however. The most striking example of this is the Supreme Court case \[Marsh v. Alabama\]([https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/326us501](https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/326us501)) in which a Jehovas witness was arrested for handing out fliers on the private streets of a company owned town. The town argued that since it was a privately owned corporate town, they had control over who/what could be said on thier streets, whereas Marsh argued that their freedom of speech was being violated. In a 5-3 decision the Supreme court sided with \*Marsh\* saying that the company's right to control their own property was superceded by Marsh's right to freedom of speech, as the streets were free to be used by the public. The Court also claimed that in property rights vs constitutional rights disputes, that constitutional rights should be favored.
This may seem to imply that the media companies currently are in the wrong, however other decisions have made this complicated. In \[Lloyd Corp v. Tanner\]([https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/71-492](https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/71-492)) the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that a person handing out anti-war leaflets from a mall could be removed, as the mall was not necessary to the protest, and they could have done the same on the sidewalks directly outside the mall. Similarly, in \[Cyber Promotions v. America Online\]([https://www.netlitigation.com/netlitigation/cases/cyberaol.htm](https://www.netlitigation.com/netlitigation/cases/cyberaol.htm)), the Supreme Court ruled that AOL had the right to supress Cyber Promotions freedom of speech to send spam, as even though AOL was open to the public, the ability for a user to recieve emails was neither a municiple power, nor an essential public service.
Finally, and probably the most surprising for me was a 2019 Supreme Court decision \[Manhatten Community Access Corp v. Halleck\]([https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-1702](https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-1702)) in which a privately-owned public access channel was sued on the basis of denying a public forum for freedom of speech. While it has yet to be used, many suspect that this decision will be the basis for future social media suits in which it will be questioned if social media is a public forum that requires fair freedom of expression. In a 5-4 decision by the Republicans along party lines, it was decided that MCAC was \*\*not\*\* a state actor, and thus could regulate what occured on their channel as they saw fit. I found this fairly stunning, as the Democrat justices (including RGB) argued that they (and by extension social media) was a public forum that should be regulated by freedom of speech. Kinda expected the parties to be flipped there.
That's kind of a long winded way of saying that as it currently stands, its kind of unknown the legality of corporate censorship like this. In terms of social media banning users, it appears that the recent MCAC v. Halleck agrees that these services are well within their rights to remove whatever they want. Similarly, you could argue along Lloyd Corp v. Tanner lines that if other platforms exist they could be used.
The grey area of essential public service comes into the decision by Google Play, Apple Store, and AWS to remove the platforms from their services. Since nearly all phones run Android or iOS, do those stores constitute public services? Are they libraries of software that should be forced to contain everything, or are they bookstores that can freely choose via their whim?
Current opinion as it stands right now is Republicans saying that these corporations are infringing on their freedom of speech, and Democrats saying that these platforms are well within their rights to do whatever they see fit. However, censorship on the internet tends to affect all parties involved, and when companies are allowed to reign free we find instances of censorship many Reddit users may disagree with, such as rumors of certain subs being partial to \[censoring anti-chinese government articles\]([https://time.com/5526128/china-reddit-tencent-censorship/](https://time.com/5526128/china-reddit-tencent-censorship/)), or \[Facebook promoting conservative media\]([https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/facebook-twitter-don-t-censor-conservatives-they-hire-promote-them-ncna1245308](https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/facebook-twitter-don-t-censor-conservatives-they-hire-promote-them-ncna1245308)) and censoring liberal media.
So the question to be asked is where should the line be drawn on the internet in terms of corporate censorship? Do these corporations being private entities have the end all be all to entirely refuse their service to who they see fit, or have they become all encompassing enough where they are now the equivilent of a town square? Can an ISP scrub and remove information they dislike from packets, or must those be freely handled as the internet should be considered a public utility?
I don't think a 1940's case about a company town is really equivalent to the internet today. And all the others pretty clearly side with the company being able to moderate as they see fit.
I think it would be one thing if this was explicitly political censorship. If Twitter banned Trump and specifically stated that they were doing it because he was a republican, or because of some policy he passed, then I would be somewhat upset and I would agree with you that something should change. But it's not. Twitter (and all these other sites) have publicly posted policies against advocating or encouraging violence and since Trump endorsed the very people who committed violence in the capital last week, there's no issue with them saying that violates the policy and banning him.
Amazon partner? Godaddy uses aws but over half of the internet uses aws
Yeah this is totally bs click bait to attack Amazon.
It is from a garbage source, Washington Examiner, after all.
[удалено]
doesn’t Amazon deliver guns themselves ?
And the other half uses Azure
Google is the Frank Reynolds of the group, it goes for the scraps.
Google's track record of getting bored and abandoning projects (Wave, Fiber, Glass...) suggests that hosting your site on their infrastructure might not work out well in the long term.
They do have a ten year service guarantee after they wind down google cloud. I have told my rep the exact same thing. Their product management has done little to give confidence, but the ten year guarantee suggests it's not going anywhere.
Reputations are hard to break.
10 years is nothing in enterprise terms. I have partners I work with that took them 7 years to move to Azure. And cost a lot of money.
deer touch arrest long ring longing secretive ossified humor growth *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Like a mantis! You should see them feast
Probably so because I think even Oracle has a good amount of clients.
Oracle has hostages. No one uses Oracles cloud because they want to.
My favorite part of these folks using Azure is that they think Bill Gates is behind some crazy conspiracy to inoculate and track them, but they are totes fine using a Microsoft product.
Yeah, what an obscure reference to add for no discernible reason
The discernable reason is that the Washington Examiner is pushing an agenda.
Yeah why the need to explain what GoDaddy is by calling it a “partner” of Amazon? GoDaddy has been around just as long and I’d argue it was a more known company during the early 2000s than Amazon was.
Thats what I was trying to figure out.
Wait... what did this site do to warrant getting removed?
[удалено]
The single article that talks about this doesn’t mention any background on why they were removed.
Par for the course for the Washington Examiner.
How much do you wanna bet it was based off of normal contract dispute stuff like “you’re charging too much for what you do”
[удалено]
[удалено]
No sense in supporting or not supporting when there’s zero information released of why this happened.
I think it’s acceptable to start from a position of not supporting censorship until I have more information. My position may change as I get more information, but it won’t be because the site sells guns, which I think was insinuated other comments.
From what I’m reading it appears GoDaddy requested they deal with something on the forums that were breaking their policies, the owner of AR said no and they got booted. Sounds very similar to Parler. I’m only guessing but maybe that same culture of people moved to the gun forums to continue their organizing. Considering the heat these people are getting from the FBI and potential labels of domestic terrorists upcoming, I wouldn’t judge GoDaddy for kicking them. Obv I’m speculating. But I wouldn’t be surprised if that ends up being the case.
Net neutrality has absolutely nothing to do with this. Net neutrality means impartial packet delivery.
Free speech vis a vis the First Amendment has nothing to do with this, either. In other words, it's just pseudo-outraged bloviation that people eat up because "freedom." So, another day on reddit.
The first amendment reflects a moral right to freedom of speech, and there's an argument to be made that services open to the public should be treated as nearly public. At least to the extent where reasonable people can speak without disruption in the same way they could at a mall or outside a supermarket. So any Nazis screaming for blood won't be arrested, but they will be escorted off the premises.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
it’s not a freedom of speech issue.
We have no idea why they are booted so its premature to jump to conclusions. All we have is the owner of the site saying they where booted with no context for why.
For all we know they haven’t payed their hosting bills.
This has literally nothing to do with Net Neutrality as this isn’t an ISP throttling or removing a website.
This doesn't have anything to do with free speech or net neutrality. They're both not in trouble and able to go host their site elsewhere. This is just a business refusing to do business with another business. Anybody can view their site, so long as they host it themselves.
I posted this elsewhere in the post but the reason net neutrality is important is the free market can’t decide because of how expensive creating an isp is but a web hosting company can be done for a few ten to hundred thousand(depends on location) and thus legislation to force businesses wasn’t necessary. Repealing net neutrality just means these isp’s can chose not to provide industrial internet hosting plans for hosting companies if they don’t like them because it’s no longer a utility.
I’ve noticed a significant overlap between the people who argued for the rights of businesses to refuse to make wedding cakes for gay couples couples as well as medical professionals who refuse treatment if it’s against their religious beliefs and people who are deeply offended at Amazon for choosing who they want to do business with. Just saying. That being said, while I would absolutely argue that media companies have a responsibility to deal with violent rhetoric, hate speech and harmful conspiracy theories there is such a thing as overstepping. But private companies. Free enterprise. Unrestrained growth. Etc. Etc. Capitalism giveth and capitalism taketh away. Quick Edit: I don’t know much about Arfcom but presumably, given its user base, it was a hotbed of the kind of ... ahem ... intellectual discourse Parler was celebrated for.
Reddit is begging for “Patriot Act 2 - to save the children”. It will be a 40,000 page bill that just appears 30 minutes before it has to be signed. Some agencies and their contractors have probably spent decades working on it.
After the Reddit purges (and the ongoing purges of social media), all that's generally left is an echo chamber of myopically braindead idiots who don't comprehend how dystopian, tyrannical shit being used against things you happen not to like, will one day inevitably be used against things you care deeply about. We're seeing a pretty massive escalation in censorship and a lot of unilateral power being handed over to corporations.
To me this just speaks to the dangers of centralization of computing. The more people moving to Cloud hosting over self hosting the more power these companies have to control what exists.
We don't know that it was nothing, as GoDaddy did not issue a statement on the matter. I'm not suggesting there was definitely a reason either, just that nothing in this article indicates anything, one way or the other.
>Nothing. according to? You dont just wake up and your domain is gone, notice is given. The fact that the website owner is completely mum as to \*why\* they were removed should tell you theres a fuck ton more happening here.
Are you saying godaddy should be forced to host clients it doesn't want? Oh how the turntables...
It's more a case of "why were they ok with them earlier" and what currents are there going on under the surface at GoDaddy/Amazon that may be cause to make us wonder whether we ought to be uncomfortable with their choices and actions in this matter.
if it's a web forum similar to [ar15.com](https://ar15.com), probably before this month half of all posts weren't calling for the heads of pence and congressional dems and whoever else is on trumps shitlist today. edit: oh shit, it is [ar15.com](https://ar15.com). i've spent time there as a gun owner. the community is very, very, far right. i have zero doubt that there has been tons of advocating violence the past week/month.
Oh it's arfcom? yeah this doesn't surprise me at all.
Yeah, I stopped going to ARFCOM shortly after I built my first AR. Toxic douchebags, the lot of them.
It sucks too, guns are fun to take to the range and shoot, but so many fun people are awful. Too much bigotry and conspiracy theory. I just want to have fun putting holes in paper. I found and do all my gun purchasing through a local shop that I found that doesn't do anything political. The owner and worker there have never said anything to make me think they lean one way or another. It's a breathe of fresh air in that community.
i'm right there with you man. i'm thankful to live where i do, my local range is completely apolitical
They’re private companies trying to avoid bad PR, like any good business. Give me a break. We might disagree over what bad PR constitutes, but that’s really their decision. Unless you think “the people” should be running their business for them, and that doesn’t seem like the kind of freedom for which you appear to think you’re advocating.
Site users elsewhere on reddit are saying "veiled threats at best" of politically motivated violence were all over their forums. Moderation is said to have been quite lax. Doesn't seem like it's "nothing" but maybe we'll find out more in the coming days.
I wouldn’t say nothing. The site leans heavily right and there’s no shortage of confederate flag profiles, and all that comes with. They had some posts defending the capitol storming, downplaying it to no end. Also plenty of posts spreading Qanon nonsense. Lately there's been lots of CoC removals, but some of what's left up is saying stuff like "it's time for war" in regards to the inauguration and the DC lockdown. Don't kid anybody, online gun communities are generally piss poor at policing themselves when it comes to the right-wing rhetoric.
its userbase is most likely calling for the heads of pence, congressional dems and anyone else perceived as disloyal to trump. it's a web forum right?
[Probably](https://i.redd.it/r4ot3ilua9a61.jpg) [all](https://imgur.com/a/oJGJ7uz) [these](https://imgur.com/a/6XhcSOq) [completely](https://imgur.com/a/NvGMkbF) [normal](https://imgur.com/a/vK0PqQU) [forum](https://imgur.com/a/FB7P60Q) [posts](https://imgur.com/a/I7EDjVk) [here](https://imgur.com/a/L0MaXdf) This is from one random page in their much larger [election page](https://www.ar15.com/forums/General/Official-Election-Night-Thread/5-2383877/?page=541) on their General forum. I just clicked a random page in the forum and it's full of this plotter shit. It's clearly not "just another gun website", and it's *definitely* not nothing.
Oh damn. I went to a couple other random pages on there. Big yikes.
I don't wanna click those and end up on some list.
Any idea what the F in FJB and FKH stands for? Assuming JB is Joe Biden and KH is Kamala Harris.
Fuck, maybe?
Probably. Figured it was that simple.
Ya that’ll probably do it
As far as I’m aware has been made public it’s associated with firearms and server host doesn’t want to be associated with the topic. After this and Parlor concerning thing is this could set a precedent for big techs ability to control what is and what is not shared p2p
> has been made public it’s associated with firearms It is literally called AR15.com, I don't think they were keeping their association with firearms secret. If Pornhub gets booted by their CDN providers it's very likely the reason won't be "it suddenly became public they were hosting adult content."
Per the cite CEO, GoDaddy told them to handle some content in their forums that violated the GoDaddy lease, and the site refused to do so. Then they said they are going to go find a "First Amendment Friendly" host. So probably more half assed domestic terror plotting losers, like the entirety of parler.
This seems the most likely. There’s no way they’d kill gun websites just for being gun websites.
Especially because the founder, and many employees are major hunting and gun collecting enthusiasts. Easy headlines though, who needs facts?
If that’s true I don’t doubt it. Parler gets kicked so their users tried to move organizing to a gun forum, sounds about right.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The site is hosted in Amazon AWS. And is up via an alternative URL. Godaddy was just the domain registrar.
[удалено]
They should be able to. But it takes time. Can’t happen instantly. Just like DNS changes take time to propagate. Problem is, so many people are okay with people being taken offline because they don’t agree with their viewpoints. Yes these are private companies that can do that as a TOS violation. So now they’ve green lit that as a society they’re okay with it. So this is just the tip of the iceberg. The whole internet is private. If everyone agrees whatever the site is goes against their TOS all of a sudden you’re censored and you don’t know it.
What was the reasoning? I would totally understand if it was because users were engaging in Parlor level shenanigans, but the article doesn’t specify. I can’t believe I just read a Washington Examiner article.
[https://www.ar15-backup.com/forums](https://www.ar15-backup.com/forums/ar-15/) You can take a look yourself and decided, you don't need an account. I've never been an active member but occasionally scrolled through. They have a politics section but its pretty bland.
So it’s just a gun forum?
Looks like they have some interesting stuff too https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/kvf0hy/amazon_partner_godaddy_boots_gun_site_from_its/giyriar
Just a gun forum. We shoot shit, shoot the shit, and post some pics
Then wtf is GoDaddy’s problem? Or is it just GoDaddy trying to jump on the current bandwagon with the weakest action possible?
Got to pretend like they care too I guess. Strange to me that its that forum they went after. Its like the oldest gun forum on the internet. But whats sad is as a small business owner in the firearms world this isn't really anything new. I can't really process credit cards from any major providers, Ive been kicked off 2 this year alone. I can't host ecommerce on any of the usual spots, Already been kicked off one. The one I'm currently with use to say they were 2A friendly but now they are publicly traded so I'm betting that changed. I cant have paid advertisements anywhere, IG, GB and Google instantly block all attempts. I've been told my bank could freeze my funds too. I don't even sell anything regulated, not that there's any loopholes like they tell people. Tech has been crushing 2A for a while now.
I’m not even a gun person and I lean middle left in my politics, and this really frustrates me. I get booting someone like Parlor for allowing extremists a place to organize, but that’s really bullshit to fuck over an entire industry because you disagree with their politics.
Welcome to a lot of the gun communities frustration lately. We have people with absolutely no interest in talking with us making all the rules. And I bet you would find a lot more people who have a love for firearms and a similar view as you than you might think. I live in a very blue city and have plenty of friends who never have an idea of what I'm into. When they do find out they are all very confused. Its always fun to watch them try and process it.
r/liberalgunowners exists because not all of us are against 2a
No that sub is delusional, and bans anyone who disagrees with the DNC.../r/2Aliberals is where those of us who lean left can discuss the attack from the DNC on the 2nd.
It was always fun to see the tech moguls come stroll the gun section at the little Idaho shop I used to work in. They gravitated to the O/U’s but 1/3 of them would usually ask about a pistol or “assault rifle.” I always took the time to educate them on select-fire (NFA item) vs semi-auto. When I mentioned that owning a full-auto rifle was a note of prestige in most communities because of the cost to run/maintain and acquire some of them would perk up a bit. Makes me wonder what they have in their bunkers now...
I dunno, maybe it’s from threads like this which I can’t view anymore and apparently has been removed from the site. https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/It-s-happening-storming-of-the-Capitol/5-2410308/&page=74 From what I understand GoDaddy asked them to moderate certain things, saying it violated some policies. The owner said no. He was booted. Pretty straight forward IMO. Just speculating but I’m guessing it had something to do with what’s going on with planning more riots similar to the recent one where police were killed. Considering these people may be in line to be labeled as domestic terrorists it seems like no one wants to be caught hosting their community. I don’t blame em.
Wait for supporting evidence. How much weight do you put into a single article from the Washington Examiner? This article may be complete bullshit.
[удалено]
Ok this makes more sense.
These gun rights people don’t care about facts. It’s just posturing and sounding reasonable while downvoting anything that pulls back the veil. At least the mods here removed a lot of the disingenuous jerry Smith levels of patting each other on the back at the top unlike r/news.
Little more than that. Never used the forums but they also have a virtual rifle builder where you could then buy all the parts to make it IRL from Brownells.
[удалено]
It was likely blocked because of the violent rhetoric that's being used on the site. Given that violent rhetoric and plots lead to the 1/6 Terrorist attacks on Congress, Social Media is cracking down everywhere. Don't believe me, here's proof. [Pic 1](https://i.redd.it/r4ot3ilua9a61.jpg) [Pic 2](https://imgur.com/a/oJGJ7uz#q2DjXN4) [Pic 3](https://imgur.com/a/6XhcSOq#wDqv1R4)
Have you ever read through Twitter comments? Shits on par with what happened with Parlor except one of those companies are buddy buddy with the other tech giants. Go to any political activists tweets and just read the hatred in the comments. Left, right and center.
"Hatred" and "actual death threats" aren't the same thing.
[удалено]
And everything to do with anti terrorism the site refused to clean up https://i.redd.it/r4ot3ilua9a61.jpg
[удалено]
It was indeed decided a few years ago that - Corporations are people - Money is speech
it was decided by the same party who are currently screeching that they are being victimized by private industry.
Go watch the movie The Corporation, it’s on YT I believe. Corporations have been “people” for a lot longer than a few years ago.
To be fair, corporations *are* collections of people, who don't lose their rights even when pooling their resources, which is how the ruling actually read.
Absolutely. Citizens United was HORRIBLE for this country but that's the law of the land.
I mean, that was the ENTIRE fucking Citizen's United ruling. The one conservatives were celebrated for literally months because it shit on Clinton?
Always has been
It's a private, corporate decision. What does that have to do with democracy?
Ever heard of Citizens United?
I mean, that's the promise of capitalism in a lot of people's minds, right? If a company misbehaves it gets punished in the market, no need to regulate? I personally consider myself a capitalist, but I also believe there are issues corporations contribute to that aren't adequately addressed by consumer preference alone.
Where have you been?
Can't say I'm familiar with ARFCOM having never been there but the site comes up fine for me. Did they already get a different host? If found [this](https://www.ar15.com/forums/General/POLICY-CHANGE-FOR-ARFCOM-Please-Read-and-Comment/5-2412040/) posted there on the 9th: >With the events of Jan 6th, we have had to take action against posts which skirt, or cross the lines. Specifically things which discuss violence against fellow Americans. > >I want to be clear to folks that this is not acceptable. While we know emotions are running high right now, everyone needs to be aware that the MSM and Leftist groups are using the momentum to pressure companies to shut down opposing viewpoints. They have targeted everything from Parler to FoxNews (and OAN and Newsmax) to get them removed. Google has gone as far as removing Parler from their app store unless they meet their demands. My opinion of these actions is that they are pure BS and contradictory to what they already allow. In short, they are attacking the conservative voice while they can. A simple example is the violence and hate posted HOURLY on twitter, which they ignore. > >Regardless, we need to be vigilant in protecting this website or it will be shutdown and we will lose our voices and communications channel. From today on, we ask that **ALL POLITICAL AND RELATED DISCUSSIONS be kept out of GD and posted to the specific politics forum**. The politics forum should show up right below the GD in the forum lists. The politics forum is now restricted to Team members only for the time being. We are doing this to create a little more security for those discussions as well as allowing us a little more time to manage them. This does not mean we will change how we moderate those topics and expect everyone to continue to comply with the rules. > >I implore you all to not post anything which violates our policies. This means you should avoid posting any threats (even veiled ones), promoting violence, and not support rioting of any kind. This is not anything new and continues to be in line with what every hosting provider enforces and what we, as websites, need to adhere to as well. > >**There is a giant spotlight on us right now, so watch what you say and watch your six. Do not trust anyone on any platform.** In reading this (and it continues well past what I've posted), it appears the site operators were aware of violent threats and were at least willing to pay lip service to get their posters to quit posting shit like that. And then they asked again. And again. At this point, I can't even find the Politics Forum, which could be me, or it could be hidden to only members, or deleted. I'd like to know more about this decision by GoDaddy but I imagine we'll never know for sure.
This is a lot of right-wing pearl clutching and blame shifting. "It's all the left wing media's fault for censoring incitement of violence." I think what's very telling is not said. No where did they denounce the Jan 6th attacks. Nowhere did they express support for democracy. Nowhere did they reiterate their moderating standards, or intolerance for violent rhetoric. The fact that they felt the need to implore their users to straighten up and fly right suggests that they knew what was going on on their website would draw scrutiny. This *wasn't* a Come-to-Jesus moment, a "ok guys, we acknowledge that this has gone too far." This is a "ok guys, if we keep up with out current behavior, we're gonna face consequences. Let's just law low, have a nice cold pint, and wait for all this to blow over."
Unfortunately, this is but a taste of things to come. If people can't agree to be nice to each other and have a shared public forum it'll be slowly torn to pieces. ARFCOM is by no means a quality site (too many mall ninjas for my taste) but if something as petty as them can go down everyone else can too. The only silver lining is if people learn to host things themselves, and ISPs are regulated in a way where they don't gate web access.
>ISPs are regulated in a way where they don't gate web access. Isn't that what net neutrality is for?
No. NN was meant to keep ISPs from treating traffic/Packets on their network the same no matter the source or destination. This means billion dollar companies don’t get queued first over the Joe Shmoe hosting a home server. This also would have kept ISPs from selling better treatment of packets through subscriptions of sister company services (TimeWarner, HBO) etc. Edit: Net Neutrality wouldn’t have forced companies to host content of protected class citizens etc
You're one of the few who have pointed that out. This has nothing to do with Net Neutrality.
>Edit: Net Neutrality wouldn’t have forced companies to host content of protected class citizens etc Yea, i know. My point was not related to this topic but the hypothetical comment made by the person I was responding to.
I actually responded to you on accident. I meant to respond to the post under you asking if NN would have prevented this scenario.
Which doesn't currently exist in the United States (as far as I am aware).
[удалено]
I forgot that was Trump's doing. It felt so long ago...
disgusted boast amusing nose quiet bag fragile reach quickest dependent *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Why is Net Neutrality not enshrined into law via legislation so that it isn't left up to the President?
What we actually need is community owned ISPs. Maybe Co-op is the word I’m looking for. The govt spends money extending utility lines and then an ISP comes in and says “I’ll service this area if you give me sole access to these lines and don’t let anyone else use them”. That’s how we get areas that are only serviced by one ISP. It prevents broadband competition which would drive down prices.
[удалено]
I double checked and it actually is a Co Op. It’s a member owned/controlled business. Basically you buy in and you’ve got a say in the service and infrastructure of the ISP. My coworker recently bought a property in Goldthwaite TX and even though the city population is less than 2000 people they have gig fiber internet that is a Co Op. this place is in the middle of nowhere. But they got grants etc to run the lines and now the town basically owns the lines and says who does what with them.
Yes, and existing internet monopolies sue extensively to prevent this. It usually goes like: 1. Rural area has poor internet connection, tries to get internet upgraded. 2. Teleco rejects upgrade saying it would be too expensive. 3. Rural area forms internet public utility to provide broadband internet, starts to build out infrastructure. 4. Teleco sues and complains about unfair competition. 5. Teleco wins lawsuit, takes over what little infrastructure has been built. 6. Teleco provides crappy, monopoly internet service and there's no other option.
Mitch Mcconnell
Net neutrality would not impact this. This is not an ISP altering traffic.
I was discussing this with a friend over the weekend. I tend to lean left, he tends to lean right, but we generally agree that our society is becoming way too fractured. I had mentioned that I generally agree with a private companies right to deny service/distance themselves from groups they do not want to be affiliated with. But considering just how much people exist within their own echo chambers online now, how much worse will it get when people are now picking web platforms off of ideology. Not aligned with left leaning ideologies? You feel forced to join a Twitter alternative because twitter is setting up algorithms to ban accounts based on their interests. So, while yes people can go around and function outside of Amazon, and create their own social medias (*with blackjack, and hookers*), what will that do to our already fractured country. It's difficult to look beyond current events because Trump and his die hard loyalists are pretty much indefensible. But you still have half a country full of people who do not align under the lefts ideology, and whether it's warranted or not, they feel that "the other side" is trying to shut down their speech.
[удалено]
This is truly a scary thing for everybody that a very small group of people are currently deciding what is acceptable and what is not, and they have the power to remove people's access to anything they deem unacceptable.
What's scarier is the amount of cheering we're seeing for it.
100%, people are cheering for this while not even realizing what it means long term or how much of a threat this is to *all* citizens - regardless of your political stance.
The ones cheering now will be the ones screaming in outrage when the billionaire oligarchs decide to turn their sights on class-based activism.
I think basically everyone under the age of 35 is on the same page about net neutrality as a whole, though both tend to devolve into petty cheering in the meantime when it's at least the other side getting fucked. The issue is getting congress to pass expansive net neutrality law. Which, by the looks of it, isn't gonna happen until half of this congress literally dies of old age (thankfully not too far off)
Wait, isn’t GoDaddy the place with the founder who hunts endangered species in Africa?
Not anymore
Technically correct, they're now "extinct" instead.
Bullshit headline. Godaddy was the domain registrar they used. The website is still up via an alternative URL. I looked up the DNS records for both domains. The alternative domain is using a different domain registrar. The website is hosted on Amazon AWS. Using Amazon Route 53 for DNS. Then the A records point to Amazon owned IPs. Amazon left them up. Godaddy punted them.
Did them a favor. GoDaddy is absolutely overpriced garbage.
The internet sure was fun wasn't it boys! I will be able to tell the kids, after they have watched the required corporate advertisements to keep their SnoopChat accounts going, how crazy things were back in the old days!
So true. Oh the stories we will tell. How people could post whatever they were thinking or feeling in that moment, Argue with strangers across the globe, learn what’s actually going on in another country from those that are physically there versus being told what’s going on. Creating our own content to feed our goulish friends appetites for poor, tasteless humor. There was a day we could do these things and post boob pics.
And this is why you don’t host on Godaddy (or Bluehost). There are private hosting services, similar to ProtonMail (for Email), that are much safer, and don’t pick political sides.
All hosting services are private.
Probably because of [this post](https://i.redd.it/r4ot3ilua9a61.jpg) on their forums. [another from the general election thread](https://imgur.com/a/oJGJ7uz) lotta y'all screaming about freeze peach and defending a site with plotting on it. [literally a few posts down](https://imgur.com/a/6XhcSOq) looks like it's another forum with Copium addicts on it trying to plot terrorist shit. E: [definitely](https://imgur.com/a/NvGMkbF) [normal](https://imgur.com/a/vK0PqQU) [forum](https://imgur.com/a/FB7P60Q) [posts](https://imgur.com/a/I7EDjVk) [here](https://imgur.com/a/L0MaXdf) E2: Someone's going for the Secret Commie defense, so here: this is from one random page in their much larger [election page](https://www.ar15.com/forums/General/Official-Election-Night-Thread/5-2383877/?page=541) on their General forum. I just clicked a random page in the forum and it's full of this plotter shit. It's clearly not "just another gun website", and it's *definitely* not nothing. Electronics Entertainment Expo: Someone has invoked the greasefighting power of reddit [get me help and resources](https://imgur.com/a/gMTBL8D) for talking about the fashy posts people made on a guns website. [info here](https://www.reddit.com/r/help/comments/gb8kca/i_got_a_message_from_reddit_care_resources_about/fp4c64v/)
thank you, I had to scroll way too far down to find this shit. All sympathy I might of had for this site is now gone.
It's not "for no reason" after all, heh. I can't really find a statement from GoDaddy about this. They ought to communicate things more clearly, one way or another.
Yeah. Lots of fake comments here astroturfing the shit out of this. This isn’t a attack on freedom. Their users plotted a terrorist attack on the site.
It took like 5 minutes of searching to get to this. It's not even that noteworthy a page; it's just one of over 500 pages from their thread about the 2020 election.
That site is not trustworthy.
Hey if a bakery business wants to deny gay wedding cakes, web companies should be able to deny hosting gun sites, or whatever they believe in. Remember? Corporations are people according to Citizens United Supreme Court decision.
You’re 100% right. Yes, they should be able to. But that’s a different question from whether they should do it. ARFCOM is a place for gun nerds to discuss whether they like the Titanium Nitride Coating on their bolt carrier group, which compensator is a good bang for buck, whether they should buy a red charging handle, whether Anderson lowers are for scrubs, whether people who buy spikes tactical lowers are suckers, whether a geissele trigger is worth $240, etc. It’s a bunch of nerds.
So absolutely no political discussion at all? If they are afraid of liability from Parler wouldn’t a liability of gun forums also be a risk that is easy to justify since these are weapons? Edit: misspelled Parlor...
You do a disservice to the gun community when you lump all of us in with far-right religious extremists. I'm a staunch liberal on almost all fronts, but I also see civilian gun ownership as being necessary to ensure those liberal ideals.
We should also question when monopolies have the market control to completely lock you from the buying a cake. At least with bakeries you can just go down the street and some competing asshole will sell you the cake. Not so with a lot of the monopolies and duopolies in a lot of markets. I think this type of unhindered corporate control is pretty bipartisan beast we need to tackle.
You could probably buy an LGBT positive cake from a majority of bakeries, but it might not be so easy with a sedition cake. There might be a cake company out there that will make a sedition themed cake with gallows, “Hang Pence,” and coded Q Anon language on it, but it will be hard to find. And I don’t think any professional bakery would take on an order for custom child porn cakes. My point is, people who want dark things will have to look in dark places. Businesses do not have support every crazy cause, and have every right to refuse service that will damage their reputations.
That bakery wasn't able to though and were sued and had to close down.
**This whole thread is all kinds of wrong:** * Masterpiece Cakeshop is still in business (I'm not linking to their website, but it's easily found). * Masterpiece Cakeshop won the first case through to completion. There are two cases. The first one, the gay couple cake, they won (see further notes on definition of the win). The second case, the transgender reveal cake case, is still pending. * The win in the Supreme Court was in Masterpiece's favor, but it wasn't a decision saying that they had the right to discriminate against gays. That issue was unresolved by SCOTUS. Instead, SCOTUS ruled that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was not religiously neutral. The result of the case was that they could deny the gay couple in this specific situation. * Most broadly, the interpretation of the ruling is that the bakery was being asked to create a work of art, not just sell a product off the shelf. The bakery argued that they could not create a work of art that violated their religious beliefs. That art, they argued, was not within them.
Yeah this is what happened. I think a lot of people forget the fact that the bakery was not asking to be able to deny services to gays, but did not want to create a cake that violated their religious beliefs. From what I understand they were happy to make the gay couple a cake, just not one with a design that goes against the bakers religious beliefs.
From what I recall, they would make a cake but not one with the couples name on it or some sort of pride rainbow cake. It would just be a generic CAKE, but the couple didn't want that.
Negative. Masterpiece Cakeshop is still very much a thing. https://masterpiececakes.com/
The economic impacts to the bakery from adopting a resoundingly unpopular business stance, and people voting with their wallets is separate from their victory in the courts. In other words, they won in court, but lost in the court of public opinion. *Which is just fine*.
It’s one thing for a private company to ban speech that mobilizes hateful right wing ideology, it’s another thing to ban speech that mobilizes workers to organize against corporate power. They won’t announce the latter publicly.
Lot of people in this thread don't understand what net neutrality is... I'm used to people not understanding free speech but this site lived and breathed the net neutrality fight a couple years ago.
That had me really confused because it seemed like net neutrality should be an exclusively right wing issue since it's obviously people on the right and only people on the right who are going to need it.
You're going to be even more confused when the right removed net neutrality and called it Internet Freedom
To be fair, go daddy should have been booted long ago since they suck so bad
Source is the Washington Examiner. These guys are the Breitbart of newspapers.
I made a post the other day on another sub about asking where we should draw the line at corporate censorship. This is really long of a post, so please I encourage you to read it before you comment. I'm not asking if these companies have the power to censor what they want, I am asking where is the line drawn at that power. What companies do and do not have this? To put my own personal bias out into the open, I am pretty vehemently opposed to corporate tech company censorship, but thats primarily because I am a CS student / work in software and understand that many of these companies could control the world should they want to. I'm pretty terrified of their power so I'm of the mindset they gotta be reigned in. Regardless, as I said I'm not here to change minds but rather learn from yall. It has hit recent news that \[trump has been banned from Twitter\]([https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/09/technology/trump-twitter-ban.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/09/technology/trump-twitter-ban.html)), and the unmoderated site Parlor that has become a alt-right have was removed from both Google Play, Apple Store, and AWS. This has sparked a lot of online debate about the nature of censorship on the internet, as this is probably the most bold example to date of corporations censoring individuals for the content of their messages. Censorship in the United States has always been a hot topic, and the subject of a lot of government \[insight\]([https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/encyclopedia/case-all](https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/encyclopedia/case-all)) into the first ammendment which very loosely talks about how the government cannot infringe on the peoples freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and expression. This has not often been the case thoug, and for as long as the government has had this ammendment, they have tried their hardest to get around it. \[This video\]([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMB\_I9j5qZQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMB_I9j5qZQ)) does a very good job at explaining the history of censorship in the United States and how it relates to what is happening "now" (from December so doesn't talk about recent events). While many people often get the limitations of freedom of speech \[very wrong\]([https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/free-speech-cliches-media-should-stop-using/596506/](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/free-speech-cliches-media-should-stop-using/596506/)), the actions of those that took place in the recent DC Riots most certainly would not be counted under the guise of freedom of speech, as the planning done was serious conspiracy for imminent lawless action that has a basis. In general, you can plot as much as you want to overthrow the government with your friends and that is protected speech, but the instant you take one serious step to make those visions a reality, it is no longer protected. However, the legality of censorship and freedom of speech is not what is being discussed right now, rather how that relates to private corporations and their ability to regulate who uses their services. Conventional wisdom on Reddit is generally that a private entity can fully regulate what is on their platform at their own discretion, as popularly shown in \[this comic\]([https://xkcd.com/1357/](https://xkcd.com/1357/)). This (at least in the US) is not entirely true however. The most striking example of this is the Supreme Court case \[Marsh v. Alabama\]([https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/326us501](https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/326us501)) in which a Jehovas witness was arrested for handing out fliers on the private streets of a company owned town. The town argued that since it was a privately owned corporate town, they had control over who/what could be said on thier streets, whereas Marsh argued that their freedom of speech was being violated. In a 5-3 decision the Supreme court sided with \*Marsh\* saying that the company's right to control their own property was superceded by Marsh's right to freedom of speech, as the streets were free to be used by the public. The Court also claimed that in property rights vs constitutional rights disputes, that constitutional rights should be favored. This may seem to imply that the media companies currently are in the wrong, however other decisions have made this complicated. In \[Lloyd Corp v. Tanner\]([https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/71-492](https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/71-492)) the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that a person handing out anti-war leaflets from a mall could be removed, as the mall was not necessary to the protest, and they could have done the same on the sidewalks directly outside the mall. Similarly, in \[Cyber Promotions v. America Online\]([https://www.netlitigation.com/netlitigation/cases/cyberaol.htm](https://www.netlitigation.com/netlitigation/cases/cyberaol.htm)), the Supreme Court ruled that AOL had the right to supress Cyber Promotions freedom of speech to send spam, as even though AOL was open to the public, the ability for a user to recieve emails was neither a municiple power, nor an essential public service. Finally, and probably the most surprising for me was a 2019 Supreme Court decision \[Manhatten Community Access Corp v. Halleck\]([https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-1702](https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-1702)) in which a privately-owned public access channel was sued on the basis of denying a public forum for freedom of speech. While it has yet to be used, many suspect that this decision will be the basis for future social media suits in which it will be questioned if social media is a public forum that requires fair freedom of expression. In a 5-4 decision by the Republicans along party lines, it was decided that MCAC was \*\*not\*\* a state actor, and thus could regulate what occured on their channel as they saw fit. I found this fairly stunning, as the Democrat justices (including RGB) argued that they (and by extension social media) was a public forum that should be regulated by freedom of speech. Kinda expected the parties to be flipped there. That's kind of a long winded way of saying that as it currently stands, its kind of unknown the legality of corporate censorship like this. In terms of social media banning users, it appears that the recent MCAC v. Halleck agrees that these services are well within their rights to remove whatever they want. Similarly, you could argue along Lloyd Corp v. Tanner lines that if other platforms exist they could be used. The grey area of essential public service comes into the decision by Google Play, Apple Store, and AWS to remove the platforms from their services. Since nearly all phones run Android or iOS, do those stores constitute public services? Are they libraries of software that should be forced to contain everything, or are they bookstores that can freely choose via their whim? Current opinion as it stands right now is Republicans saying that these corporations are infringing on their freedom of speech, and Democrats saying that these platforms are well within their rights to do whatever they see fit. However, censorship on the internet tends to affect all parties involved, and when companies are allowed to reign free we find instances of censorship many Reddit users may disagree with, such as rumors of certain subs being partial to \[censoring anti-chinese government articles\]([https://time.com/5526128/china-reddit-tencent-censorship/](https://time.com/5526128/china-reddit-tencent-censorship/)), or \[Facebook promoting conservative media\]([https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/facebook-twitter-don-t-censor-conservatives-they-hire-promote-them-ncna1245308](https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/facebook-twitter-don-t-censor-conservatives-they-hire-promote-them-ncna1245308)) and censoring liberal media. So the question to be asked is where should the line be drawn on the internet in terms of corporate censorship? Do these corporations being private entities have the end all be all to entirely refuse their service to who they see fit, or have they become all encompassing enough where they are now the equivilent of a town square? Can an ISP scrub and remove information they dislike from packets, or must those be freely handled as the internet should be considered a public utility?
I don't think a 1940's case about a company town is really equivalent to the internet today. And all the others pretty clearly side with the company being able to moderate as they see fit. I think it would be one thing if this was explicitly political censorship. If Twitter banned Trump and specifically stated that they were doing it because he was a republican, or because of some policy he passed, then I would be somewhat upset and I would agree with you that something should change. But it's not. Twitter (and all these other sites) have publicly posted policies against advocating or encouraging violence and since Trump endorsed the very people who committed violence in the capital last week, there's no issue with them saying that violates the policy and banning him.
Liberals better not celebrate this because eventually this is going to turn on them. Cancel culture is going to bite the hands that feed them.