Neo-Nazi Site The Daily Stormer Moves To Dark Web After Shutdown (vice.com) 337
After being shutdown by Google and GoDaddy, prominent neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer has moved their site to the dark web. "The new site is now only available through the Tor network, which allows users to set up their own domains," reports VICE News. "The original site, Dailystormer.com, is now fully offline." From the report: The homepage, as of Tuesday morning, contained articles that make light of the car ramming attack that claimed the life of 32-year-old Heather Heyer; admonish the "Jew media;" liberally employ various racial epithets; and, in a less offensive post, provided an update on which characters are available on Pokemon Go. In a statement, the site's founder promised to bring his site back online. "The Daily Stormer will be live in internet prison with drug dealers, terrorists and perverts, which is where we've been exiled to, for all time," Andrew Anglin said in a statement sent to VICE News. "We should have a real domain online within 24 hours. If it gets shut down again, people will know we are on the black web."
Good Job (Score:3, Insightful)
Now we can't mock the posts, debate the facts, or keep tabs on the threat. Nothing will get better; rather, these vile sentiments will fester, and we'll have a tougher time anticipating the next Charlotsville, since it won't be so widely publicized.
Good job, fuckwads.
Re:Good Job (Score:5, Insightful)
Debate? What debate?
Re:Good Job (Score:4, Interesting)
The one that would normally prevent the country from being torn in two by radical extremists killing anyone they didn't think was on their side.
Note that this is LITERALLY how the Nazis gained power in Germany. First they fought in the streets with communists, then they got blackballed/arrested, then Hitler wrote his infamous book, and the people were persuaded to his side.
So keep going, Commies, if you want to wind up in death camps like your predecessors, alongside a lot of other "undesirables".
Re: Good Job (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually people were persuaded because he predicted that the Jews (who he claimed controlled the banks) were loaning Germany money in order to wreck their economy as further revenge for WWI.
Then the US (and other) stock markets crashed, and the banks tried to "call in" Germany's debt. Which tanked their economy and caused insane inflation.
So then people started thinking, "hey this Hitler guy actually was right."
Re: Good Job (Score:5, Informative)
Then the US (and other) stock markets crashed, and the banks tried to "call in" Germany's debt. Which tanked their economy and caused insane inflation.
Hardly, because the Weimar hyperinflation took place in 1923, when stock markets all over the world were still romping in boundless prosperity.
The inflation took place because the 1919 treaty of Versailles required Germany to pay a huge restitution to the Allied countries, and in gold. This stripped the backing from the Reichsmark, causing it to inflate away to nothing, as in Zimbabwe and Venezuela. When everyone saw their savings and pensions become worthless, it was easy for a rabble-rouser to rise from the trenches to claim that "they" had stabbed the country in the back.
Re: Good Job (Score:5, Insightful)
But unlike Nazi Germany, our economy is actually doing quite well. Just because Trump ran a campaign that declared that the U.S. economy was spiraling down the drain doesn't make it so. When Germans in the 1930s were disappointed with the economy, it was because many of them were literally starving to death. Modern Americans who think our economy is doing poorly are detached from reality (most likely because they're stupid and don't know how to judge the veracity of whatever they read on the internet or hear on talk radio).
Re: Good Job (Score:5, Informative)
Or maybe you're full of shit. Our economy amounts to employers claiming "we can't find any workers" while simultaneously offering fuck all in the way of pay, benefits, or workplace conditions. When you look at their job postings, it's all unrealistic and inflated credentials desired for effectively entry-level or one step above. Nobody who actually has the credentials wants to do that work, and companies aren't loyal to their employees.
That is all shit I can speak for personally, as well as everyone I know. I can run job searches right now that prove it. Where's *your* source? Things being great for the middle class does not overshadow the troubles of the poor. A great number of Americans are being swept under the rug (i.e. they don't count toward unemployment or other "bad" numbers) and smug, useful idiots like yourself are led to believe things are great.
Put up or shut up.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I wish I had a clip of that Republican politician explaining it. A reporter pointed out that the crime stats say that crime is down under Obama, but he counters that people "feel" like crime is up. And people's perception is an equally valid alternative form of truth in his opinion.
Re: Good Job (Score:3)
That new The Atlantic article, "How America Lost It's Mind" is a really good article about how feelings have been embraced as a valid form of truth in the states.
Re: Good Job (Score:2, Insightful)
Interresting how foreign politics that does not equal facism somehow equals communism.
Re: Good Job (Score:5, Insightful)
The modern Neo-Nazi pretty much mirrors the view of their spiritual forebears. If you're not espousing Aryan superiority, then you're either a emasculated collaborator with the Jewish conspiracy or a Communist (in some Neo-Nazi's eyes one and the same). I realize the parent may not be a Nazi, but the rhetoric of the White Supremacy movement has been adopted with extraordinary fidelity by the Alt-right, though I suspect most members of the Alt-right are too naive or stupid to realize it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Good Job (Score:5, Informative)
The alt-right is made up of several different sub-groups, each with slightly differing but largely overlapping ideology. You have white supremacists, nationalists, simple racists, Nazis, MGOTW, 4chan's /pol/ board, "new media" like Brietnbart and InfoWars...
Basically any far right group that benefits from the support network of fake news outlets and which hates the standard set of boogymen (Jews, non-whites, feminists etc.) is quite likely to be part of the alt-right.
Re: (Score:3)
Watch Tim Pool's videos of his time at the G20.
Where merely being in a picture taken of a supposed "nazi" was enough to get people stalked and violently attacked.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good Job (Score:5, Funny)
No kidding, I haven't checked out the site but damn the summary is comedy gold:
admonish the "Jew media;" liberally employ various racial epithets; and, in a less offensive post, provided an update on which characters are available on Pokemon Go.
I am just imagining some guy in a KKK outfit screaming about the liberal media while chasing down a squirtle in the Bronx. Maybe that is how they plan their rallys, by pokestops?
Re: (Score:2)
This is promising topic of discussion. Which Pokemon are the most "Nazi"?
Re: (Score:2)
Registeel. [bulbagarden.net]
Also, Team Rocket are pretty Nuremberg [bulbagarden.net] too.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with your sentiment. I just hope whatever I think isn't someday deemed unworthy to say by American tech companies.
Still, if no one knew about the Charlottesville thing then no anti-protesters would have shown up. The vanishingly small number of nazis would have had their little hatefest and been properly ignored. No one would have gotten hit by a car.
Why can't we handle these things like we always have. Let them have their platform and ignore them. Let the FBI worry about whether they are planning a
Re:Good Job (Score:5, Insightful)
Why can't we handle these things like we always have.
That's the wrong question. We are handling things like we always have. Look at how these issues have been handled over the past 200 years or so, and I think the question you'll want to ask is "why can't we handle these things any better than we used to?"
Re: (Score:2)
What a day to have no mod points...
Wise words indeed!
Re: (Score:3)
When your relatives (deleted children, because, you probably didn't manage to breed) are dead due to violence in the streets, you can thank your communist brothers (briefly, before you go to the gulag) for thinking that, this time, communism will work.
Who's talking about Communism? The 1980's called, they want their political boogeyman back.
Re:Good Job (Score:5, Insightful)
Now we can't mock the posts, debate the facts, or keep tabs on the threat.
Mocking racists and Nazis online is little more than entertainment, and it's the lowest of hanging fruits, at that. Debating facts is moot; when the premise of the debate is "our race is superior to all others and should lead the world," you're already playing chess with a pigeon. As for keeping tabs on the threat--a concern of consequence--I can only imagine that the people who do this for a living are already pretty well-versed in tracking people on the Dark Web.
Nothing will get better; rather, these vile sentiments will fester, and we'll have a tougher time anticipating the next Charlotsville, since it won't be so widely publicized.
These vile sentiments will fester regardless, but that very lack of publicity will also keep the numbers of people doing this low. You lose visibility, you lose the lightweights and hangers-on. You lose numbers. You lose clout. You lose efficacy. That is worth a great deal.
Re:Good Job (Score:5, Insightful)
Debating facts is moot; when the premise of the debate is "our race is superior to all others and should lead the world," you're already playing chess with a pigeon.
And to those pigeons, I'd like to rephrase a popular Trump and Trump supporter remark: Both the Nazis and the South lost; get over it.
Re: Good Job (Score:2)
Yes, let's silence people. Free speech is only for those who can fit comfortably in our echo chamber.
Re: (Score:3)
These vile sentiments will fester regardless, but that very lack of publicity will also keep the numbers of people doing this low. You lose visibility, you lose the lightweights and hangers-on. You lose numbers. You lose clout. You lose efficacy. That is worth a great deal.
For them, right now. However, if you keep pushing minority opinions to the dark web, eventually everyone will end up on the dark web, because everyone has a few unpopular opinions.
Besides, you're delusional if you think killing this one site will actually do anything. As long as demand exists, new ones will pop up to replace it (just like torrent and streaming sites), they'll be bigger and more popular than ever before. And the demand will continue to exist until you address the real problem: poverty and
Re: (Score:2)
If that logic held, everyone would have been subscribing to all those boutique white supremacy periodicals being distributed via snail mail forty years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
GoDaddy didn't give a shit about "killing the site". Neither did Google. They just wanted to disavow any connections between themselves and said site. I can guarantee that both companies consider the job completed, and wherever the Stormfronters may manage to find hosting is of no concern to them. They no longer look bad by association, and advertisers aren't scared away by it.
Make no mistake about it, it's those advertising dollars that drive Google's decision-making process. Not freedom, not ideology, not
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Effort needs to be concentrated where it will have maximum impact. At the moment that's the presidency, and POTUS's apparent support of white nationalists and neo-Nazis.
Trump has actually done a lot to unite the left, the centre and the moderate right in a common cause.
Re: Good Job (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Is there any evidence that shutting down drug marketplaces has actually done anything to curb drug use or harm criminal organizations? Everything I've read about the war on drugs, etc, has indicated the exact opposite: drug use increases & criminals thrive. Which is kind of my point about this nazi stuff, it thrives in darkness.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good Job (Score:4, Interesting)
...debate the facts,
Lol, "debating the facts" with neo-nazis and right-wing nutjobs...yeah, good luck with that. Half of them think the Earth is flat and the other half consistently have trouble putting their shoes on correctly. So yeah, not being able to "debate the facts" with them is a real loss.
Re:Good Job (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope, anybody with the Tor browser can.
The only loss here is for the Nazis. The site is now harder to access, harder to find, and to boot now it's open season to go and try to hack the site. Tor protects the identity of the user, so now any random hacker wannabe can go and try their skills against the site without much of a risk of being found out.
The same anonymity means it's also far harder for the Daily Stormer from banning people from the site -- unless they want to make it really hard to access, like requiring referrals. So this development also makes it very possible to simply troll and spam the site into oblivion.
Re:Good Job (Score:5, Insightful)
Either it's hard to use Tor or it isn't.
If it's hard then it will be harder to keep tabs on them, but it will also be harder for them to get their message out to their own idiot followers. Sounds like a wash to me.
Or, using Tor is easy, in which case nothing really changes except that they have been demoted to the dark web and lose some legitimacy.
I think I would also prefer to just have people be free to say whatever they want in a public forum, but I don't support forcing private web hosting companies/domain services to participate in spreading content they are opposed to.
As far as I can tell these neo nazis still have freedom of speech for the time being. So the government can't legally stop them from being on the internet. They just need to find services that are willing to do business with them, or develop some better IT skills and set up their own domain service/web host, and they can refuse service to all the dirty Jews trying to use it.
In America you have freedom of speech. You don't have the right to anyone's help in spreading your speech.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not advocating we force content providers to host hateful content, but I also think it's a mistake to publicly force them to drop said content.
And yeah, I get the difference between government suppression of speech vs private/personal/business censorship... but I didn't bring that up. Since you did, though, my view is that freedom of expression is as much a cultural construct as it is a legal one, and that they reinforce each other; therefore, both are worth defending.
My main point is that driving stuff
Re: (Score:2)
We *are* pretty careful, are we not? This has happened only to a neo-Nazi website. Communism, libertarianism, and of course the alt-right all have many thriving websites.
Re: (Score:2)
In America you have freedom of speech. You don't have the right to anyone's help in spreading your speech.
Unless it's Verizon, Comcast, Charter, or AT&T?
If network neutrality is vital to a free and open internet, then at some point *all* infrastructure services -- web hosts, DNS, SSL providers, search engines -- should be held to the same standard. If Google decided to remove your site from search results, is it reasonable to say, "just use Bing"? What if IANA or ARIN decided that your site should be excluded from services?
Who gets to decide what should be excluded from your internet?
Um, sure we can (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing will get better; rather, these vile sentiments will fester
Hey there. Wasn't sure if you knew when WWII was, because this crap has been festering since then. Also then was before the Internet. So while you're not wrong there. Having them out in the open on the Internet didn't slow them down, having them go into the darker side of the Internet won't slow them down, the only thing people can do is continually reject their ideology every time it pops up. Just like we'll have to remind everyone from time to time why you vaccinate your kids. Success in one area le
Re: (Score:3)
Fuck me this is dumb. Unless you happen to be an FBI agent assigned to a domestic CTU, it's not your fucking job to anticipate the next attack. The Daily Stormer being banished to the dark web is their problem, not anyone else's.
Re: (Score:2)
Now we can't mock the posts, debate the facts, or keep tabs on the threat. Nothing will get better; rather, these vile sentiments will fester, and we'll have a tougher time anticipating the next Charlotsville, since it won't be so widely publicized.
Good job, fuckwads.
Are you one of those people who thinks the Dark web is some deep impenetrable force rather than just the popular media name for something you need to download a program to read? Get a grip.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you worry. NSA be all up into TOR...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Um. There are no doubt already a ton of Nazi sites on the dark web where you *already* can't mock the posts, debate the facts, or keep tabs on the threat. Also, Nazi f2f gatherings, and encrypted private chats. What's happened here is that Nazis have lost one high-profile public recruitment tool. High profile matters for recruitment, so this is a significant blow against them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Good Job (Score:5, Insightful)
in addition to being a drug dealer and pedophile?
In many individual cases, probably Yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Uh, it was anticipated. Or do you think the counter-protestors all popped in via magic portals?
Re: Good Job (Score:3, Funny)
No it's black web, they say it at the end. White supremacists on the black web, that's ironic.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there any actual evidence that:
1. Daesh got moved to the dark web
2. They have blossomed
?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think Nazis actually plot on the Daily Stormer? Are you nuts? They gloat, but they don't plot there. Plotting is done f2f or through private encrypted messages
This Is Both Good and Bad News (Score:5, Insightful)
The Good: It drives the "weekend Nazis" away, and they'll simply get bored and go back to being irrelevant.
The Bad: The real Nazis will embrace this, and will gladly slither into the depths.
The Ugly: Government agencies now have a valid excuse to obtain funding for exponentially increasing the number of exit nodes under their control.
Re:This Is Both Good and Bad News (Score:5, Insightful)
The Ugly: Government agencies now have a valid excuse to obtain funding for exponentially increasing the number of exit nodes under their control.
I don't quite get this argument. Neo-Nazis are suddenly a valid excuse when child porn, illegal drugs, or arms dealing weren't? I mean half of the country likes their guns, even more like their drugs (even in they won't publicly admit it), but I don't think anyone is going to stick up for the kiddie diddlers. Even the Neo-Nazis have a better reputation than they do.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh, fair enough, I suppose?
I should have said "...now have additional justification to obtain funding..."
Re: (Score:2)
No need to worry about that (Score:3)
And no, these groups aren't hard to track. They're public groups actively recruiting members. But when the highest authority in the country says step off you can bet everybody will.
Re:This Is Both Good and Bad News (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not very familiar with Tor, but I thought exit nodes were to access normal web sites via Tor. Isn't it the case that a .onion address doesn't need an exit node? How will the government's controlling more exit nodes help?
Re: (Score:2)
The depths they've already been slithering about in?
Re: (Score:2)
Eh? Previously there were sites selling drugs, child porn, guns and materials to make boms from. But the agencies did *not* have a valid excuse to deal with them? Now, suddenly, there's a few random racist nutballs publishing a pseudo-newspaper on there and *NOW* that's enough to give them a valid excuse?
Just great (Score:5, Funny)
Great, now where am I supposed to go for my Pokemon Go updates?
It's the equivalent of ... (Score:2)
.. a hood.
Libertarians should love this outcome. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's hilarious that all the self-styled "libertarians" here are freaking out about private businesses choosing not to host material they see as potentially harmful to their bottom line.
This is a textbook example of the free market regulating itself. No one wants the bad publicity of hosting these chuckleheads, and they certainly can't provide the dollars needed to make hosts consider carrying heir content a worthwhile business decision.
And before you say "but muh First Amendment!" that only applies to the government you so loathe. In fact, the government is the ONLY instiution that actually has the power to protect free speech.
So let these Nazi shits scuttle off to the dark web. No one is stopping them from posting their drivel there, and unless they create a clear and present danger to public welfare, no one is going to interrupt their supremacist fantasy circle jerk.
Re: (Score:3)
I think it's hilarious that all the self-styled "libertarians" here are freaking out about private businesses choosing not to host material they see as potentially harmful to their bottom line.
Yep. Libertarians have always taken the Gold Medal in Hypocrisy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except, of course, that the domain name system is anything but a libertarian construct.
But don't worry, it will be augmented by a system that is not controllable by either governments or big corporations.
Huh? (Score:2, Informative)
I think it's hilarious that all the self-styled "libertarians" here are freaking out about private businesses choosing not to host material they see as potentially harmful to their bottom line.
What in the sam hill are you talking about?
http://reason.com/blog/2017/08... [reason.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Did Godaddy and Google cancel the domain name registrations, or the hosting services? It matters. The articles aren't technical and they keep mixing the terms.
Godaddy and Google can do whatever they want as hosting companies. There's a million of them and anyone with an unpopular view can just host the domain themselves if they have to.
Godaddy and Google are regulated monopolies as registrars. There's a small number of them and their license is granted by ICANN and not just anyone can become a registrar
Re: (Score:2)
Did Godaddy and Google cancel the domain name registrations, or the hosting services? It matters. The articles aren't technical and they keep mixing the terms.
I've been trying to figure this out too. There's been a lot of incorrect and contradictory reporting.
Here's what I think happened (and I would love any corrections to this!): Godaddy was not, contrary to some reports, actually hosting the site. They simply decided they didn't want to be the registrar for the domain name. The admins asked Google to be the registrar, and Google said no.
That's pretty much it. As near as I can tell, the site never lost whatever host its using, it's purely a domain name registra
Re: (Score:3)
Libertarians believe that decisions by private entities should be legal.
Libertarians do not believe that decisions by private entities should not be criticized, and libertarians don't equate "morally right" with "legal". They can think a decision by a private company is evil, and say so, even if they don't want the law to do anything about the company.
Unless the libertarians are demanding that the law should require that the private businesses serve everyone, they are not being hypocritical.
Re:Libertarians should love this outcome. (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps because there are Libertarians, and then there are alt-right types or worse masquerading as Libertarians to white wash their vile views. I think Libertarians, at least on economics, are hopelessly naive, but when it comes to issues of free speech, I tend in that direction. People have a right to speak their mind, but no one is under any obligation to hand them a microphone.
Re:Libertarians should love this outcome. (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, say, a "private business" refusing to rent an apartment to a black family?
That is specifically illegal: http://civilrights.findlaw.com... [findlaw.com]
Would you be so cheerful if ISPs refused to say, host LGBTQ sites?
Federal courts have ruled that LGBTQ are a protected class under the Civil Rights Act https://www.lifesitenews.com/n... [lifesitenews.com] so, yes, that would be illegal on the part of the ISP. That's federal law. Now, the current administration would prefer that states be allowed to be petty tyrants and strip any citizen they want of their rights, so they've appealed the ruling.... we'll see how that turns our.
I'm pretty sure that it was settled that NO, private businesses do not get to pick and choose who they serve when the court determined the bakery DID have to make a wedding cake for the gay marriage http://aclu-co.org/court-rules... [aclu-co.org]
IF you had read that article, you'd have noticed this little tidbit in there:
Longstanding Colorado state law prohibits public accommodations, including businesses such as Masterpiece Cakeshop, from refusing service based on factors such as race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.
So yes, a state court in Colorado said the bakery was violating the state law.
I believe that was widely hailed as a precedent setting verdict that would stop those 'closed minded' businesses from constraining people's freedom ...like this.
The former was a federal court ruling LGBTQ is a protected class, and falls under the Civil Rights Act, the latter is a state affirming you have to follow the law. The federal ruling was precedent setting, the state one... not so much. Regardless.... neither of those apply to worthless fucking NAZI's, because not only are NAZI's NOT a protected class... they are enemies of the United States.
Re:Libertarians should love this outcome. (Score:4, Insightful)
The GP was a bit off on his examples, but the question is a bit more complicated. Refusing to sell a cake out of the display case because an individual is black/gay/Muslim/whatever, obvious discrimination, no question, both immoral and illegal. Events and work-for-hire, on the other hand, are where the ambiguity lies. If the cake bakers were asked to custom create a cake with swastikas for the neonazi rally, should they be allowed to refuse to take that job? I would agree that the bakery should be required to sell the neonazis a cake from the display case and a tube of red icing, but requiring them to enter a work-for-hire contract is, in my opinion, more ambiguous.
Bringing it back to the gay wedding scenario, the summary on the ACLU website is a bit vague on the difference between the two. The plaintiff in the case was indeed gay, making it a layup for a discrimination ruling to be made. The case would have been far more interesting if the plaintiff was straight, e.g. a caterer subcontracting a cake for a gay wedding. If the policy was "we don't make same sex wedding cakes, regardless of who asks", and both a straight person and an LGBTQ++ person received the same lack of service, then I would argue it's not 'discrimination' so much as 'a service that isn't offered', again, so long as the policy was posted and they're willing to sell an undecorated cake and a tube of frosting to that same person. Of course, it would have been really funny to watch the squirming that would take place if the cake was for "Alex and Taylor".
Just to ensure I don't get accused of comparing homosexuals to nazis, I'm explicitly not equating the two groups - and that's my entire point. Refusing service to a human is discrimination, and no, I'm not even a little bit in favor of doing so, to anyone. However, refusing to provide service to an *event*
or *ideological group* irrespective of the individual representative signatory is...apparently the same thing though, according to the state of Colorado? The "protected class" argument is tough - "neonazis are not a protected class" makes some sense because one can choose to cease being a nazi (and really, they should), but does that mean that a cake baker can refuse to make a swastika cake for a straight neonazi, but not a gay one (yes, I know...)? Moreover, the "protected class" argument is tenuous due to its seemingly inconsistent definition. It's not as simple as 'Things that cannot be changed about one's self', because the quoted list includes 'marital status', which is optional. Though presumably not an exhaustive list, it also doesn't list religion, meaning that they would be free to refuse to make a 'Happy Ramadan' cake as long as the person asking was a white Muslim?
This brings us full circle to GoDaddy - If the individual paying for the hosting account for the website fell within a protected class in tangential relation to the content of the website, does 'protected class' overrule 'objectionable content'? Does 'private company choosing who they do business with' overrule both? Neither? If "protected class" wins, then all the neonazis need to do is have a gay person sign up for the hosting account, and then Godaddy *has* to provide them service. If "private company" wins, then there is no such thing as a "protected class" as long as the content is sufficiently objectionable.
Re:Libertarians should love this outcome. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
His ignorance is his bliss.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yep. Try and post the 'N' word here. Go ahead. And the owners of Slashdot have every right to do so.
Now if the DOJ comes in and bashes down your door for saying or typing it, then there's a violation of the First.
Yeah, they censor it, imperfectly. It's the only word they do, as far as I know. Fascists.
Dark web? (Score:3)
You don't need a domain name for a website (Score:2)
This whole thing is just silly.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, this is what I keep saying, but nobody cares. The neo-nazi website moving to Tor is nothing but a publicity stunt. There was literally nothing stopping them from keeping their site on the open web.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess they could've bought a domain from a non-US provider but it would've been highly ironic if their "patriotic" website would've sit on an Iranian domain. They could've gone without a domain but that has it's own problems. For example, many corporate firewalls force you to use their DNS and block directip completely.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently Jordan and India would be their best bets for a like-minded domain... well, if a daily mail article can be accurate on occasion: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... [dailymail.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
For example, many corporate firewalls force you to use their DNS and block directip completely.
It doesn't bother me any more if people can't reach the site from work than it would bother me if they couldn't go to a porn site from work. It's the employer's equipment and service, the employer gets to decide what sort of use it's to be put to.
Brilliant! (Score:4, Insightful)
This is rich- they'll survive about 24 hours (if that).
The hacktivists who use Tor are now gleeful that their attacks against the site cannot be traced. Even people who don't hack sites are going to be looking for scripts. IT guys who never hack are going to attack.
These people are not smart. If you dive into Tor or I2P you are in the deep end of the pool.
Unintentionally funny (Score:5, Funny)
"We should have a real domain online within 24 hours. If it gets shut down again, people will know we are on the black web."
A bunch of neo-Nazis have to use the black web, that's hilarious.
Too effin slow (Score:2)
Ok, if I was trying to buy a silencer, or cocaine, or access kiddy porn, waiting 30-60 seconds between page updates might be acceptable. But as a normal working bee that doesn't want the interested TLA watching my browsing, yeah, how about no.
Re: (Score:2)
Commies too? Asking for a friend.
Re: good (Score:2)
I see you are well versed in logic and a student of culture. I envy your wit.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The site actively promotes genocide.
Shall we count the "put them in ovens" quotes over at the Daily Stormer?
Re: (Score:2)
They knew you were coming so they baked a cake.
The Cake is a lie, but the Nazis are real.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, pushing people into the shadows is hardly desirable. It's basically just cordoning them off into their own little echo chamber. Just because you push hatred out of your sight doesn't magically cause it to cease to
Re:Have the BLM and Antifa follow. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Have the BLM and Antifa follow. (Score:4, Informative)
Antifa are an actual group. You can find chapters of them all over europe, canada, they've been spreading in the US for at least 3 years. They're no different then american-centric versions like BAMN(by any means necessary), they run in the same circles. Claiming to be anti-fascist, pro-communist/lennin/marxist/or some mix. If you think it's a virtue signal, then you apparently missed [nationalreview.com] the berkeley riots [dailycaller.com], which was the handywork of bamn and antifa. [dailycaller.com]
In other words: You either live a very sheltered life, or are a shill.
Re: (Score:2)
The first amendment does protect free speech - it stops the government from stopping you from holding (and shouting about) your abhorrent Nazi views.
What it doesn't protect you against is me, and all the other good people in America telling you in no uncertain terms that you're a scumbag and that your Nazi bullshit can fuck right off. It also doesn't protect you against a company refusing to do business with you because of your fucked up views, and their reflection on that company.
Re: (Score:2)
https://xkcd.com/1357/ [xkcd.com]
Always good to post in these discussions, as so few people understand.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you. Neo-Nazis are free to shout their evil filth in the public commons, but they're not welcome in my livingroom, and by extension on any website I host or hosting service I own. The First Amendment is a restriction on the state interfering in free expression, but private citizens, as individuals or in groups (like, say, a web hosting company) have every right to restrict what kind of speech they broadcast.
Let the Nazis go to the Dark Web along with the drug dealers and kiddy porn purveyors. It sound
Re: I vociferously disagree (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And it's not even an internet prison. It's just in the countryside.
Re: Pretty predictable (Score:3)
I think it's quite the opposite. By not ostracizing these people we insinuate they're espousing valid opinions rather than making clearly counter-factual claims such as racial superiority and Jewish conspiracies. I don't think they should face government censorship, but there's nothing wrong with social consequences for propogating hate. I fail to see how these social consequences could help rather than hurt their cause. They can play the "David vs. Goliath" card all they want, but I sincerely doubt anyone