Social Network Gab.com being threatened by GoDaddy: 24 hours to transfer or suspension

[domainguy50]

backstory: Gab is a social network alternative to twitter. their selling point is free speech (all speech is welcome, including what you believe might be hate speech.) which is basically is the first amendment. no unlawful material is allowed, but virtually any speech is. recently they purchased the "gab com" domain for $220k.

this site is very controversial as a result, with mainstream media outlets claiming it is popular with nazi and anti-semite messages. the site has 800,000 users and has experienced modest growth recently so it really isnt all bad hate speech. regardless, those disgusting messages on the site by some users are also lawful no matter how distasteful they are. as a result of these media attacks, (and the recent revelation that the synagogue shooter in pittsburgh yesterday had an active gab profile) gab is being unfairly targeted by smear campaigns online reporting the site as "a hate speech site" via email to gab's service providers.

gabs host (microsoft) revoked its contract with gab a few months ago

gabs payment providers (paypal and stripe) just revoked their services

just a few minutes ago, godaddy has said they will stop working with gab:
(i cant post the image or link idk why)
"BREAKING: Godaddy is threatening to suspend our domain (which is worth six figures) if we do not transfer to a new provider by tomorrow. This is madness."

the complexity of the situation is compounded by the fact that Gab is on a payment plan to fully own the domain since they recently purchased it. the broker/escrow agent control this which makes it even more difficult for the company to transfer to a new registrar by EOD tomorrow.

I understand that Godaddy is a private business and its clauses may allow it to do this, but this seems extreme overreaction. "24 hours to transfer or else" is a very menacing way of doing business.

-if you were in charge of gab what would you do? create your own payment processor, host, and DNS? they got deplatformed quickly... i guess they could try to get an offshore Hosting company or invest in native hosting.

-what is the most "free speech" friendly DNS provider there is?

-is it fair for internet infrastructure companies to de-platform a small upstart social network because of controversial speech? or should companies like DNS and hosting should be regulated and allow any customer as long as it is lawful content being hosted.

 

[domainguy50]

I don't see anyone bitching about anyone upholding free speech, I think that is a cop-out, I certainly don't give a sh*t. Say what you like, how you like, but when someone goes radical, like the killer did, and no one steps up to try and stop what happened, that is a problem.

The guy who sent bombs to Democratic leaders ("magabomber") sent thousands of tweets that were threatening violence to politicians. The tweets were reported. Twitter did nothing.

For the synagogue shooter, Gab forwarded the Information to the FBI as soon as they discovered the identity (fbi was given gab data before he was detained I believe)

Twitter has billions in dollars of resources, gab is bootstrapped startup with 5 employees. Twitter can't do better?

 

[.X.]

I am don't do any social media, so I wouldn't

He has not made any sort of references as your question, or satement, implies. You are showing the double standard, by your words, he has been pointing out. Please keep emotions in check when debating sensitive material.

It is a simple question, yes or no, I can't get an answer, why????

 

[domainguy50]

I am don't do any social media, so I wouldn't

It is a simple question, yes or no, I can't get an answer, why????

I just want to talk domains, websites, and hate speech etc
Lets stay on topic

 

[.X.]

The guy who sent bombs to Democratic leaders ("magabomber") sent thousands of tweets that were threatening violence to politicians. The tweets were reported. Twitter did nothing.

For the synagogue shooter, Gab forwarded the Information to the FBI as soon as they discovered the identity (fbi was given gab data before he was detained I believe)

That is a positive for Gab then, and that is all I was trying to find out. the dude cracked, but if it was reported, that is all Gab can do.

 

[JB Lions]

The guy who sent bombs to Democratic leaders ("magabomber") sent thousands of tweets that were threatening violence to politicians. The tweets were reported. Twitter did nothing.

They should have, I don't see anybody disagreeing with that. If somebody threatens violence/incites it, it should get reported and handled.

 

[.X.]

let's talk hate speech then, So i am assuming here. People talk hate about other people, they form an alliance to speak out and march, protest and ect, and what becomes of all that?? it makes them feel better,?? more powerful?? what is the jest of it all?

 

[Internet.Domains]

That is a positive for Gab then, and that is all I was trying to find out. the dude cracked, but if it was reported, that is all Gab can do.

Yep, and they crack on Facebook, Snapchat, Twiter and forums all the time. So back to my original question, what is different about Gab? Why is an entire community of people being condemned for one nutcase?

 

[domainguy50]

That is a positive for Gab then, and that is all I was trying to find out. the dude cracked, but if it was reported, that is all Gab can do.

wanted to clarify- he was reported shortly after the shooting but before being detained

Gab was working on it as soon as they were given a tip that the shooter might be on gab. Twitter and facebook I don't think gave the FBI anything


The good thing is gab has paid verification so they had his license. They knew it was him. No lengthy internal investigation was needed like twitter

 

[JB Lions]

Yep, and they crack on Facebook, Snapchat, Twiter and forums all the time. So back to my original question, what is different about Gab? Why is an entire community of people being condemned for one nutcase?

That's been gone over many times. The companies they were using for hosting, registrar, payment processing etc. weren't ok with the content (possible TOS violations on top of that) or didn't like the negative publicity from what happened/bottom line. So they'll simply move on over to companies that are fine with it. Just like that dude from last year.

 

[Internet.Domains]

let's talk hate speech then, So i am assuming here. People talk hate about other people, they form an alliance to speak out and march, protest and ect, and what becomes of all that?? it makes them feel better,?? more powerful?? what is the jest of it all?

Yes, people talk hate and form an alliance all the time. Have you been on Twitter lately?

 

[.X.]

Yep, and they crack on Facebook, Snapchat, Twiter and forums all the time. So back to my original question, what is different about Gab? Why is an entire community of people being condemned for one nutcase?

My understanding was, the man wasn't reported by the site after posting the intent to do what he ended up doing, Other than that, I have no beef at all. as domainguy50 said, it was reported. with that being the case, they did the right thing and did their best to stop the situation, So I read wrong apparently and i personally no longer have any problem.

 

[.X.]

Yes, people talk hate and form an alliance all the time. Have you been on Twitter lately?

I don't do twitter, facebook, snapchat or any social media, neither does anyone in my household, so i only know what i am told, I did sign up years ago for facebook and twitter, i logged in twice to each i think, wasn't my cup of tea, so i ditched it

 

[domainguy50]

That's been gone over many times. The companies they were using for hosting, registrar, payment processing etc. weren't ok with the content (possible TOS violations on top of that) or didn't like the negative publicity from what happened/bottom line. So they'll simply move on over to companies that are fine with it. Just like that dude from last year.

They weren't ok with the content but they'll look the other way when other platforms have hate speech

If PayPal doesn't like hate speech, when can we expect them to deactivate their twitter? They're doing business and support services on twitter where twitter endorses racism (Google images "VerifiedHate" for examples)

 

[Internet.Domains]

That's been gone over many times. The companies they were using for hosting, registrar, payment processing etc. weren't ok with the content (possible TOS violations on top of that) or didn't like the negative publicity from what happened/bottom line. So they'll simply move on over to companies that are fine with it. Just like that dude from last year.

None of those companies that say their TOS was broken has shown any evidence regarding. No screenshots. No statistics. No proof. Nothing.

 

[JB Lions]

None of those companies that say their TOS was broken has shown any evidence regarding. No screenshots. No statistics. No proof. Nothing.

Did you even read this thread? GoDaddy did.

 

[JB Lions]

They weren't ok with the content but they'll look the other way when other platforms have hate speech

If PayPal doesn't like hate speech, when can we expect them to deactivate their twitter? They're doing business and support services on twitter where twitter endorses racism (Google images "VerifiedHate" for examples)

That was addressed with the "negative publicity" and violation of TOS. Then, you would have to ask those companies that took those actions, some already said why.

 

[.X.]

but what becomes of hate speech? the only thing i have seen become of hate speech is fights and lots of violence, Aren't we divided enough as a country already????

My reasoning for not hating, 1. t's a huge waste of time IMO, 2 It makes no difference in the final outcome, 3 I would be pissed off all the time and that would be wasting my life IMO

When I can be living and be content, rather than angry and suppressed

 

[Internet.Domains]

That was addressed with the "negative publicity" and violation of TOS. Then, you would have to ask those companies that took those actions, some already said why.

The negative publicity was written by politically biased media with no facts, proof or evidence.

 

[JB Lions]

The negative publicity was written by politically biased media with no facts, proof or evidence.

Dead bodies? They took a screenshot of what he said on GAB, right before he murdered a bunch of people. That's not good publicity. Big companies don't want to be tied to it.

 

[Internet.Domains]

Dead bodies?

How did you jump from the subject of TOS to "dead bodies"?

 

[.X.]

The negative publicity was written by politically biased media with no facts, proof or evidence.

I thought it was legal to talk about hate speech lol, i feel like rain man here.

 

[JB Lions]

How did you jump from the subject of TOS to "dead bodies"?

There is nothing about TOS in what I quoted from you.

"The negative publicity was written by politically biased media with no facts, proof or evidence."

Where is the word TOS?

I'm not sure why it's hard for you to understand companies not wanting to have anything to do with this type of stuff. Wrong or right, they don't want this on them. They see a bunch of people murdered, they see a screen grab of what he said, they're going to run from it.

 

[domainguy50]

There is nothing about TOS in what I quoted from you.

"The negative publicity was written by politically biased media with no facts, proof or evidence."

Where is the word TOS?

I'm not sure why it's hard for you to understand companies not wanting to have anything to do with this type of stuff. Wrong or right, they don't want this on them.

Its hard to understand because these companies have a double standard of tolerance when it comes to racism. To no surprise, you have the same double standard that I pointed out in page 10 and you've yet to acknowledge it.



Paypal works with facebook where murders are live streamed on facebook live

Pqypal works with twitter where Isis and pedophiles organize. Where racism proliferares and violent arson and riots are organized.

 

[JB Lions]

Its hard to understand because these companies have a double standard of tolerance when it comes to racism. To no surprise, you have the same double standard that I pointed out in page 10 and you've yet to acknowledge it.

What double standard, quote.

And how do you not understand after it's been explained to you many times? You think negative publicity is..........good? Does that make sense?

 

[carob]

Allowing big media companies to skirt legal responsibility certainly has both very strong positives and very strong negatives. I for one think the big companies have been given too much leeway and tolerance to what is ultimately their blind eye to responsible supervision of the actual content on their platforms. They have grown stronger and faster because they haven't needed to have been truly responsible for the content shared by their members.

I personally think the world would be a better place if they were ultimately held responsible .. but I also see how that could have negatives as well. It's a very interesting dilemma.

Thanks for your thoughtful posts. Free speech has various price tags - it is challenging and we all have to work on it.

You've raised a key point there that the public and governments are having to contend with:
Are these social media platforms just hosting User Generated Content (UGC), or are they Publishers?

As you've said, UGC content is usually covered by very loose rules - roughly speaking if it is unacceptable the platform hosting it has to take it down when requested, but up until then they are not responsible - as long as they did not edit or review an item to approve it before it was posted.

Whereas a Publisher is very tightly regulated and is responsible for all of what they publish, with serious consequences and responsibilities.

Election interference by foreign parties and maybe governments using social media platforms is pushing some governments to re-classify the platforms as Publishers, which would change things a lot.