Rob,
I agree with you that there are legitimate concerns about free speech and censorship. ... But to post hate-speech or providing a platform for it, to deny that the real pain caused by mass shooters is actually staged, to promote crazy conspiracy theories, all in the name of "free speech", to me that is false equivalency.
Let's examine that list:
(a) post hate-speech
(b) provide a platform for others to do (a)
(c) deny the real pain caused by mass shooters
(d) promote crazy conspiracy theories
We agree on (a), (c), and (d). Personally I disapprove of people saying such things. Should they be allowed to say such things in person and online? In a free society, I think that is an inevitable consequence of allowing open debate. So I'd be in favor of that free speech even though I disagree with what's said. But I will agree completely that, insofar as Rob is perceived by people to have engaged in (a), (c), or (d) personally, then that can't be good for the Epik brand. So we largely agree on (a), (c), and (d) as things that should not happen.
But buried in that list is a CRUCIAL POINT: Item (b). Should someone provide a platform that others use, in large part, to promulgate intolerant views? Acting as an individual, I would never wish to do so because I disagree with such views and consider them to be very harmful.
However, isn't
providing a platform for online speech EXACTLY what domain registrars do? Domain names are primarily a mechanism for online communication, whether by email or as a website address. The real question for online free speech is precisely this:
Should registrars be neutral, or should they take an ideological position? Should registrars be amoral, or should they rely on their morals to ban content? (Keep in mind, domain registrars oversee online addresses NOT content.)
If a registrar wants to stake out an ideological position and refuse to service domain names that might be used for content that the registrar considers objectionable (whether on moral grounds or based on any policy or whim whatsoever), that – most would agree – is the registrar's right. A business can refuse to do business with potential customers of some category or to put limits on how the business's services are indirectly used by the customer. We'll set aside cases of racial or religious or LGBTQ discrimination for now, though some might see a connection.
I personally believe that registrars ought NOT to be ideological. Instead, I'd like registrars to behave like neutral service providers. Specifically, registrars ought to handle domains in the same way for everybody. In practice, this means that a domain transfer is not banned merely because the customer is racist – or because the customer runs a website that includes racist content or which does not ban racists.
Registrar employees and registrars should not be seen as endorsing content published on websites merely because they don't ban the domain name. That seems obvious. Yet there is a growing social trend to attempt to bully registrars into banning domains based on content some group of people (large or small) objects to. And this behavior is based on the assumption that registrar employees and registrars ought to be condemned based on the content published on websites. That is only logical and appropriate if we view registrars as endorsing the web's content. And that expectation leads inexorably toward censorship or partisanship among registrars – companies that ought to strive to be neutral and content-agnostic. And it also leads simply to cowardice among risk-averse publicly traded registrars, who would rather evict / censor any customer than stand up to pressure from lobbyists or a social-media mob. Alt-right content isn't the only content that can be banned. In the past, or in many countries today, content that normalizes the LGBTQ community would be banned based on pressure from the general public. This should not be forgotten.
Individual registrar employees have opinions that may be progressive or conservative, left-wing or right-wing. They might object to some idea as a conspiracy theory, or they might wish to stand up for that minority opinion against an official narrative. Depending on the view and the environment, that "conspiracy theory" might be crazy or it might be the actual truth. Talking about the Armenian genocide outside Turkey might be a non-controversial examination of history. But inside Turkey it might be deemed a dangerous conspiracy theory that undermines the state and which should be banned.
So should a domain registrar provide a platform for others to spread ideas that are [insert label]? If you believe in free speech and want registrars to be neutral insofar as possible, then YES. Fundamentally, registrars provide domains, which are platforms. Should registrars police content, banning even what is legal? If so, then according to whose ideology? And how?
If a registrar should refuse to service domains that might be used to spread ideas that are [insert label], then this the category of ideas being banned will vary based on time and place. Maybe that's alt-right racism. Maybe it's misogyny. Maybe it's nutty conspiracy theories that question the causes of mass murder. And to many of us, that sounds superficially like a good thing because we want to reduce the spread of such ideas. But elsewhere this may mean banning ideas that question official state narratives, or which undermine the locally dominant religion, or which are favorable to the LGBTQ community, or which question (let's say) the motivation of that country's ongoing wars.
As an individual, on moral grounds, I would never provide a platform for racism. But as a registrar employee, I regard my responsibility as neutrality toward customers and their content. If they sell crappy products / services, I don't intervene just because I personally think they're ripping off their customers. If they are spreading ideas that I think are foolish or worse, I don't enforce my worldview on the web by banning content I disagree with. Such actions by a registrar seem like dangerous overreach, and on principled ethical grounds I want registrars to be agnostic, amoral, non-ideological, neutral.
Bad ideas can be combatted in an open forum by critical debate. We should not reach for censorship as our first option. That is a very slippery slope and a precedent far more dangerous than allowing dumb or dangerous ideas to be expressed. Bad ideas can be defeated by talking. Not by suppression. Bad ideas dissolve when exposed to evidence, to argument, to satire, to condemnation, to ridicule, to empathetic persuasion. Bad ideas sink to the bottom whenever they mix with good ideas.
That doesn't mean that everybody who believes bad ideas will be persuaded. Obviously that can never be true. But when bad ideas are suppressed, those who hold such opinions feel persecuted. And persecution lends the bad ideas an aura of rebellion or legitimacy, which attracts new followers.
Think about it. If all racists are banned from all mainstream websites and all mainstream registrars, where these racists were in the minority, then what happens? The racists will congregate elsewhere, where they are in the majority. If some suggestible 18-year-old is undecided and walks into a room, then it makes a big difference whether the room is 90% racist or 1% racist. On Facebook, perhaps, the racism would be rebutted by the 18-year-old's friends and fail to spread. But once Facebook bans racist views, then the kid will find that racism in a much more concentrated form on some other platform where it is expressed in much more extreme ways. And there nobody will rebut the dumb racist opinion. So it will seem more plausible. Add to that the allure of having been banned by all the major platforms, and it's no wonder that some naturally rebellious teenager or disgruntled middle-aged dude finds satisfaction and a sense of belonging by participating in a gang of too-dangerous-for-mainstream folks who know the secret truths that "The System doesn't want you to know".
The remedy for the spread of bad ideas isn't to continue de-platforming and suppressing and censoring them until they end up super-concentrated. If you ask me, it's the opposite: Let offensive ideas be expressed in the person's normal social circles and on normal online platforms. That is where those ideas will be challenged in the MAXIMUM way. This dilutes and dissolves most of the bad ideas.
Once again, the list was:
(a) post hate-speech
(b) provide a platform for others to do (a)
(c) deny the real pain caused by mass shooters
(d) promote crazy conspiracy theories
People should do NONE of (a) - (d) in their capacity as individuals. But society only functions properly if certain service providers are non-ideological. Registrars exist to provide platforms for online speech. Asking all registrars to deny service on ideological grounds is a bad idea.
Individuals who work for neutral service providers have to act in ways that are amoral and agnostic even though the individual has a moral belief and a strong opinion about the customer. Domain registrars are not the only service providers in question. Even white supremacists go to the dentist, buy cars, take the bus or subway, order hamburgers, set up WiFi in their home or office, check into hotels, board planes, etc. Individual business owners might deny them services, and that's arguably their right. Perhaps society as a whole could band together to refuse all services to people who engage in hate speech. Maybe that will somehow starve or ostracize the racists into submission, and they will spontaneously stop being racist. Or maybe that sense of persecution will harden them, cause them to band together to provide alternative services to a majority-racist clientele, and maybe their racism will become even more extreme as a result of being concentrated and under attack.
Domain registrars are so vital to online communication, and online communication is so vital to solving all of society's problems in the 21st century, that domain registrars really ought to be the last kind of business to ban content based on partisan or ideological grounds. The web needs to be neutral and open in order for persuasion to function. If the righteous and the racists use different social media platforms, different registrars, different hosting providers, different everything, then how is that chasm to be bridged?
Content can be censored through legal means when the law is changed or enforced by officials who are answerable to the citizens. Registrars provide domains, which are platforms. If we want non-ideological non-partisan registrars that are neutral and fair, then we should not ask registrars to reject domain transfers or suspend domains except based on guidelines that are determined through legitimate democratic mechanisms.