Post: #1

Site no longer works. We're probably next.

Post: #2

Is that legal? Can a registrar just steal any domain it wants?

Post: #3

(05-03-2018 07:17 PM)Suits Wrote:  Is that legal? Can a registrar just steal any domain it wants?

Yes, don't you remember what happened to daily stormer?

http://www.returnofkings.com/128775/dail...its-speech

Post: #4

(05-03-2018 07:17 PM)Suits Wrote:  Is that legal? Can a registrar just steal any domain it wants?

They have a terms of service which they think that site has violated.

It's going to take someone suing and it going through the court system to argue that there are no registrars that will allow you to exercise your lawful speech.

This redefining of words and made up terms like "hate speech" is going to kill this country if it continues.

Post: #5

Yes, the first time it happened was with another alt-right website, thedailystormer in August. All the alt-lite is keeping quiet about this, but I agree with Roosh more websites on the dissident right will be attacked and if a dem gets elected in the future it will be game over online.

Post: #6

Know your enemy:

- Godaddy has a long history of censoring sites;

- Godaddy hasn't made a profit since 2009; and has lost $531 Million since 2012 yet, like most of the Narrative-Pushing Silicon Valley companies, somehow still exists.

- Current CEO Blake Irving (ex-Microsoft, ex-Yahoo) is True Believer (Gender Gap, Women of Colour Coding, sponsoring a female Nascar Driver).

- They're Anti-Net Neutrality.

Why support the enemy? Because it's everywhere, and into everything, you have no choice.

Note one other interesting fact: Blake Irving is the son of an FBI Agent.

Post: #7

Yeah, this forum has a holocaust fact finding thread and acknowledges that fat women are in fact unattractive. SHUT IT DOWN.

On another note, prosecutors are trying to get TDS to turn over personal info about the posters there. Social shaming works and the left is weaponizing it.

Post: #8

As I recall there was no shortage of platitudes that "those racists had it coming" when they pulled this stunt on Anglin.

If Trump doesn't provide a blind 1A protected government recourse for this kind of de-platforming then he's only treading water.

In this day and age free speech on the internet is more important than the right to shout your lungs out in town square. If the left get their way on this too often then that ugly cunt in the twitter post up there is not going to like how it ends.

Meanwhile the soft Right is proving themselves to be the kind of pussies we've come to expect, somehow hoping that they'll be spared this treatment if they just cuck hard enough. This limberdick bullshit from them is going to push more moderate right guys like me to the far right simply because they're not willing to settle for "last one to the guillotine".

Can forums be run on blockchain tech yet?

Post: #9

This will inevitably end up poorly. If you click on the link and read the comments, it's a bunch of butt-hurt SJW's trying to defend the clear encroachment on free speech and a lot of people aren't having it. But...

The shit part of it is that the people with the loudest mouths get the most attention. You think the lefties aren't a well-organized machine ripping away civil liberties, but they are. They're very well organized. "The squeaky wheel gets the grease."

It's much easier for Godaddy (or anyone else) to just roll over and dump on any site that attracts some sort of static than to defend them. When you let the naysayers define what is a violation of your very own terms of service agreement, then where does that leave you? One could equally argue that the very thing that the lefties just did was an even more egregious violation of the TOS, but that's just not gonna happen.

Just like the weirdo "gender is not binary" movement--people who could give two shits about these mutants will rarely voice their opinions. Therefore, an excruciatingly small minority (less than .5% of the population) bitches and whines so much that they impose restrictions on the rest of humanity--and we seem to be sort of "okay" with that, for some reason.

Most people just can't be bothered with such nonsense, so it goes unchecked. And then we get what just happened. That's the way it's gonna go for a while, until normal people get fed up with it.

Post: #10

The dailystormer is a clearly provocative troll site. Spencer's site is different - it's a serious political oriented site. This level of deplatforming is not going to stand.

Post: #11

Just as when they tried to do the same to the Daily Stormer a while back.

Post: #12

First is short and required viewing, made by Zeitgeist Eater after the backpage.com seizure. I'd watch the second as well. I'm not an IP/IT expert but this guys knows his shit. Sites ending with .com, .org, and .net use a DNS server in the US (Virginia - CIA anyone?). Sites ending with .info or (obviously) .ru don't and seem less vulnerable to take-downs. Someone who knows better can chime in. EDIT: where you have your site hosted clearly matters. Related to the DNS issue, choose carefully the country for your web hosting.

Another Dot-Com Seized / Virginia Strikes Again





Cisco Blocks ___ Mirror Project Domains

Post: #13

(05-03-2018 08:16 PM)RawGod Wrote:  The dailystormer is a clearly provocative troll site. Spencer's site is different - it's a serious political oriented site. This level of deplatforming is not going to stand.

There is no shortage of people two mere steps to the left of you that are saying "Spencer's site and platform was needlessly provocative".

People need to understand how this is going to enter into an extreme feedback loop.

In the case of the Stormer, men had an outlet for their political grievances. I thought the DS was a gutter-grade news source but for a lot of guys it was an outlet, even just to read something horribly politically incorrect in the same way we can share a joke about the fucking wammens and the stupid shit they do on this forum. The only reason it existed and had any support was because discussing those ideas had been forbidden from society for a long time and places like that were the only pressure relief valve people had for their anger over those issues.

Then the left comes along. "Inciting violence and hate, shut it down".

Where is the pressure relief valve?

Gone.

What happens when you get rid of a pressure relief valve?

The pressure finds somewhere else to escape or it blows.

So in some cases the rage builds and in others people find their way to different sites. In the case of the latter the left picks the next lowest piece of fruit on the Right wing tree, this gets even easier because now the people turfed out of their haunts are really pissed and they're less shy about expressing it too.

"Inciting violence and hate, shut it down"

The pressure finds somewhere else to escape or it blows.

"Inciting violence and hate, shut it down"

The pressure finds somewhere else to escape or it blows.

"Inciting violence and hate, shut it down"

The pressure finds somewhere else to escape or it blows.

"Inciting violence and hate, shut it down"

The pressure finds somewhere else to escape or it blows.

"Inciting violence and hate, shut it down"

What happens when there is nowhere else for the pressure to escape to?

Well obviously we can't discuss that because we would be "inciting violence and hate".

This game the Left is playing is all or nothing, and unless someone in authority steps in to guarantee access to the battlefield of ideas then we will be left only with a more traditional battlefield to march to.

Post: #14

Hell, this story he put up on DS (which I believe is was what finally got them banned everywhere) could have been written by the more extreme ends of the manosphere:



EDIT: shit it took me a long time to track the actual article down:

https://dailystormer.name/heather-heyer-...-old-slut/

Post: #15

If this keeps up, 2018 is going to be remembered as the year they censored the Internet.

First, Church Ladies of all sexes shut down Backpage, The Erotic Review, and other sites, because they couldn't stand it when people did naughty things. Now, a new generation of Church Ladies of all races shut down Richard Spencer's crowd because they said naughty things.

So here is my question. How did we manage survive -- and prosper -- as a society for the past twenty years with all this so-called craziness on the Web?

The answer is: We survived because there actually isn't as much craziness as these government-driven robots would have you believe.

This no longer breaks down into left-right. It's become the government class vs. the free thinkers. In other words, we have become the old Soviet Union and our version of "turning someone in" for wrongthink is socially shaming them out of jobs.

***

Here is the way it works now. A group of government wonks (or special interest charlatans) gets together and decides there is a "crisis" having to do with their own area of "expertise."

Ever wonder what all those women's studies majors do after graduation? This is one thing they do. They fudge some numbers and write up press releases for media outlets.

Unlike years ago, reporters don't actually do research, so the claims made by these groups are never questioned. No one bothers to look into the alleged "thousands" of women "trafficked" to the Super Bowl each year. Nor do they question things like the motive behind the ridiculous "hate lists" put out by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

In the old days, all of this would have been examined closely -- and criticized. In fact, the whole concept of "hate speech" and "hate crimes" would have been dismantled by reporters since they have a lot to ultimately lose when it comes to restricted speech. It would have been like the way they picked apart the bans on rock music and the anti-porn crusades of the 1980s. They saw their own work possibly being in the crosshairs.

But now, reporters just breathlessly repeat what's on press releases. They no longer work for weeks on a story, digging up facts and getting it right. Instead, they have to bow to the instant news cycle and beat the competition. It's speed over smarts. (This is one reason I left the media, by the way.)

So what happens then?

Then it snowballs. Because the wonks and their lackeys in the media have ginned up a "crisis," the government money starts rolling in so it can be stopped. The police get grants. The special interest groups get donations. The government idiots get scads of dollars to conduct "studies."

With all this money to be made, everyone involved has a vested interest in keeping the gravy train rolling.

If Richard Spencer disappeared tomorrow, they'd all just find a new Richard Spencer. If all women could be tracked all the time, they'd invent a new crisis to replace "trafficking." If all the Opioids disappeared tomorrow, you'd suddenly hear about a "cocaine crisis" (or something of the sort).

The prisons got a lot less full when they legalized pot, so there is also a push to fill them back up. The government class knows this and acts accordingly. The press never even thinks to bring this up, unless it's in a racial context. Dissidents, wrongthinkers, whoremongers, and whores are the new potheads.

This is the part where I usually write an ending to my spiels. But this time I don't have an ending...except to say it won't end well.

Post: #16

Refusing to host a website is the equivalent to refusing to sell paper or printing equipment to a newspaper. It is an explicitly illegal violation of the 1st amendment.

Post: #17

Does any person doing business actually choose a company like godaddy because of their sjw stance?

For example, if godaddy hosted a site called killallpolynesiansnamedkona.com, I would still use their service if it was cheapest. If they decided to take down killallpolynesiansnamedkona.com I would not rush to them because they are my hero.

Nobody hates Richard Spencer more than me, but nothing about him or any of those damn Nazis has anything to do with how I spend my money. This post is being made inside a BMW who supplied Richard Spencer's homosexual crush, Adolf Hitler.

Godaddy only suspends people like this to male themselves look good, but pretty soon there gonna have to suspend everybody.

Aloha!

Post: #18

(05-03-2018 08:57 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  Refusing to host a website is the equivalent to refusing to sell paper or printing equipment to a newspaper. It is an explicitly illegal violation of the 1st amendment.

Terrible analogy. The correct comparison would be to say that refusing to sell servers to political groups that you disagree with.

Refusing to host a website is more akin to refusing to let a neo-Nazi skinhead fraternity rent your house or refusing to let Kona to buy space on your bill boards to promote his "Annual Steal A 24-Pack From Walmart Day."

Post: #19

(05-03-2018 09:32 PM)Kona Wrote:  ...
Godaddy only suspends people like this to make themselves look good, but pretty soon there gonna have to suspend everybody.

Aloha!

This is also part of the problem.

Smarter guys than me on the forum voiced concerns that Trump was ignoring this specifically because it would inevitably be used to shut down everyone.

Not just the hard right or the soft right, but the hard left and even facets of the soft left as-and-where their message was anti-authoritarian.

The right gets shut down, so they pick out all the left wing groups supporting "violent or hateful" positions and move to shut them down too. Bitchy, but better than nothing, right? Meanwhile the service providers don't give a shit. Politics is a tiny fraction of their revenue and a big headache anyway. By this stage the word "resistance" is taken to mean "violence" and digitally speaking we're back to the dark ages, which is precisely what the elites want.

Remarkable in a way. Like a traditional communist uprising. The useful idiots purge the traditionalists and then the politburo purge the useful idiots, all done in cyberspace barring a few ugly incidents.

Post: #20

(05-03-2018 09:49 PM)Suits Wrote:  

(05-03-2018 08:57 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  Refusing to host a website is the equivalent to refusing to sell paper or printing equipment to a newspaper. It is an explicitly illegal violation of the 1st amendment.

Terrible analogy. The correct comparison would be to say that refusing to sell servers to political groups that you disagree with.

Refusing to host a website is more akin to refusing to let a neo-Nazi skinhead fraternity rent your house or refusing to let Kona to buy space on your bill boards to promote his "Annual Steal A 24-Pack From Walmart Day."

Or refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding.....?

Post: #21

(05-03-2018 10:05 PM)kamoz Wrote:  

(05-03-2018 09:49 PM)Suits Wrote:  

(05-03-2018 08:57 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  Refusing to host a website is the equivalent to refusing to sell paper or printing equipment to a newspaper. It is an explicitly illegal violation of the 1st amendment.

Terrible analogy. The correct comparison would be to say that refusing to sell servers to political groups that you disagree with.

Refusing to host a website is more akin to refusing to let a neo-Nazi skinhead fraternity rent your house or refusing to let Kona to buy space on your bill boards to promote his "Annual Steal A 24-Pack From Walmart Day."

Or refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding.....?

That example would fall somewhere in between the two.

Post: #22

Suits Wrote:Refusing to host a website is more akin to refusing to let a neo-Nazi skinhead fraternity rent your house or refusing to let Kona to buy space on your bill boards to promote his "Annual Steal A 24-Pack From Walmart Day."

Houses and billboards are finite physical objects, but the internet is a nearly infinite physical object.

Therefore, your comparison is way, way off.

Post: #23

(05-03-2018 10:18 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Suits Wrote:Refusing to host a website is more akin to refusing to let a neo-Nazi skinhead fraternity rent your house or refusing to let Kona to buy space on your bill boards to promote his "Annual Steal A 24-Pack From Walmart Day."

Houses and billboards are finite physical objects, but the internet is a nearly infinite physical object.

Therefore, your comparison is way, way off.

If a hosting company agrees to host a website, the data is physically existing somewhere in their property. And nearly infinite is definitely finite, even if the cost of memory storage has gone done.

The 1st amendment was written into law to prevent the government from restricting speech.

Here's the actual text:

Quote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I don't see anything in there limiting the right of property owners to determine what their property is used for.

Post: #24

All I know is my right to celebrate my religious holiday of "Annual Steal A 24-Pack From Walmart Day" better not be infringed or I'm allying with the Polynesian ethnostate in the race war.

Post: #25

When people say "why isn't Trump doing something about this?", can they articulate what they think the president himself can do?

When people say this is a "violation of the First Amendment" can they please articulate exactly what laws are being broken by GoDaddy in order for them to be prosecuted or face a civil suit?

It is very easy just to throw these statements out there but almost no one can say which laws are being broken. Just saying "violating 1A" isn't enough, not least because well it isn't a 1A violation, 1A has nothing to do with this. It would be great if it did (maybe?), but it doesn't.

To be clear, there absolutely needs to be some sort of fighting back against this, but it can't even begin unless people understand:

- what laws, if any, have been broken (probably none on the case)

- who or what entities can pursue a remedy (i.e. can Trump or the government "do something" about it- probably not)

There are a lot of unrealistic expectations born out of a lack of knowledge of these basics.

The fight back against this has to be through cultural means, unless somehow new laws are able to be passed that protect speech against retaliation by a private party.