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.

 

[frank-germany]

Let see...

You said posting a link to the video shouldn't be allowed because it's illegal (in NZ )

I said making it illegal won't stop it from being shared.. the whole point of making sharing it illegal.

I added: Government overreaction will encourage conspiracies, which is exactly what we don't want. Responsible people should do that.

I apologize for using up so many words the first time.

Also... not supporting a Gov decision to censor people is free speech.

it's not about censoring people
it's about censoring terrorists

has nothing to do with free speech at all
as you didn't say anything

 

[frank-germany]

it's not about censoring people
it's about censoring terrorists

has nothing to do with free speech at all
as you didn't say anything

let me explain:

when you say or post
" I want that video to be published / shared, linked ..whatever"

you can do so
that's "free speech"

I support that
you should be able to do so

you have every right to ask the government to allow
posting linking whatever
of that video

that's "free speech"


I 'm not of the same opinion
but I would respect that you post / say such nonsense


I would not respect you
but your right to do so

 

[frank-germany]

ISIS's ....Their videos are not much different than the one Rob shared on Twitter.

and that's exactly why they want that video not to be shown

 

[frank-germany]

The people involved want publicity.

are you kidding?

they have internet access
they can do it themselfs

 

[NameLlama]

Proud to host Infowars
Makes sense

Infowars' Alex Jones ordered to undergo sworn deposition in Sandy Hook defamation case
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/14/us/alex-jones-sandy-hook-lawsuit/index.html

 

[Chris Hydrick]

https://www.namepros.com/threads/so...fer-or-suspension.1107245/page-6#post-6957471

<sermon>

Life is created at conception -- there is a literal flash of light -- when the soul is implanted in the embryo.

Curious if you've studied this...? If so,

What's the correlation between zinc and the soul?

https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2016/04/radiant-zinc-fireworks-reveal-quality-of-human-egg

 

[Rob Monster]

https://www.namepros.com/threads/so...fer-or-suspension.1107245/page-6#post-6957471


Curious if you've studied this...? If so,

What's the correlation between zinc and the soul?

https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2016/04/radiant-zinc-fireworks-reveal-quality-of-human-egg

I have no idea about the presence of Zinc or the chemical phenomena. What I do know is that within the first 10 days of fertilization, and prior to moving to the womb, all of the required DNA to make life is present.

As for the timing of ensoulment following conception, theologians, scientists and philosophers debate it. I align with those who believe that ensoulment happens at conception.

Here is the relevant verse in case interested:

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5)

 

[golan]

As for the timing of ensoulment following conception, theologians, scientists and philosophers debate it. I align with those who believe that ensoulment happens at conception.

In Buddhism, the conception happens when three things meet: the red mother energy (brought by the egg); the white father energy (brought by the sperm); and the consciousness. (Now, Buddhists have a hard time with all these clonings etc)

 

[mr-x]

I have no idea about the presence of Zinc or the chemical phenomena. What I do know is that within the first 10 days of fertilization, and prior to moving to the womb, all of the required DNA to make life is present.

As for the timing of ensoulment following conception, theologians, scientists and philosophers debate it. I align with those who believe that ensoulment happens at conception.

Here is the relevant verse in case interested:

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5)

Many chapters confirm God's role.

Psalm 71:5-7 NLT

O Lord, you alone are my hope. I’ve trusted you, O Lord, from childhood.

Yes, you have been with me from birth; from my mother’s womb you have cared for me.

No wonder I am always praising you! My life is an example to many, because you have been my strength and protection.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm 71:5-7&version=NLT

Authored by King David.

 

[carob]

Has anyone ever heard of a homeless domain?

A lot of the discussion here has focused on freedom of speech issues - there is now a thread for that https://www.namepros.com/threads/free-speech.1129018/. and possibly this has obscured other issues.

There are also very significant domain ownership and investing issues here which really need exploring, and it would be good to see someone write up the facts of the case and the implications for domain investors. What money is risked or lost, how, by whom? The aftermath and legal lessons of this might need a whole new thread.

To continue existing Gab needs hosting for its content, and that has to be hosting whose ToS allows Gab's content. Gab does not require the domain gab.com to function - Gab can change domain whenever it likes, it would just lose a few links and a bit of branding, but since it is a membership site members would just go to whatever new address was given. But someone had bought the Gab.com domain for a lot of money, and what would they lose if the domain could not be used any more for that site, or no domain registrar would agree to take the domain?

According to Namebio, Gab.com changed hands for $220,000 on Flippa.com in September 2018.https://namebio.com/?s==kTOyYTO5AjM Info from Namepros has it that the domain was being purchased using an Escrow.com payment plan, in which case after learning that Namebio would normally remove the listing until the payments are completed.

It appears that Godaddy gave the domain owner 24 hours to move the domain elsewhere. When Escrow.com hold a domain for a payment plan, presumably they control the registrar account it is in and their name is in the Whois, and being the registrant makes them the owners as far as ICANN is concerned. Presumably the client directly controls the DNS settings, deciding which IP and website the domain is used for. So the client could change the DNS and stop the domain working with the current site. Could the registrant, Escrow.com, also step in and change DNS and disable the site? Certainly Godaddy could.

So could Escrow.com have simply said to Godaddy, ok, we will stop the domain working with the Gab website and just park it? Would that satisfy Godaddy?

And if Godaddy insisted the domain should leave Godaddy in 24 hours and it did not, what was actually going to happen? There seem to be several possibilities:

Domain repossessed by Godaddy - seems there are a lot of those, they just sit in limbo forever
Domain cancelled by Godaddy - would drop like any other, then presumably go to a dropcatching auction
Domain allowed to expire by Godaddy - drops, as above
Domain auctioned by Godaddy or listed for sale on Afternic
Domain parked or forwarded by Godaddy, pending further negotiations

Maybe @jberryhill would know what might happen there

In any case the domain rapidly moved to Uniregistry- could it have stayed there? Then it moved on to Epik.com, and the Gab.com site was kept alive. Is it quite possible some registrars would take the domain on condition it would no longer be used for the gab.com forum? Some on NP have raised the question, what if no one will take a domain? What happens to a homeless domain? Given enough forewarning, someone with the funds could create their own registry to give a domain a home. But most likely the domain would just drop.

Once the domain drops and is caught, does it get a fresh start or do registrars still not want it? Do they care if the original owner has spent a lot of money to re-acquire it?

The significant investor question is who risks losing money. Normally the registrant would just lose the full purchase price of the domain, and it's unlikely they insured against that loss. So they have a strong incentive to keep the domain alive. Where a purchase via payment plan is in place, does the seller lose all the rest of the payments or does the middleman, here Escrow.com, insure against that? Who is at fault for the loss of the domain and can they be pursued for reimbursement?

So we can see a strong financial incentive for several parties to keep the domain alive. Would they accept moving the domain to a registrar who set a condition that the domain could not be used for the existing forum? Would they provide inducements to a registrar to take the domain? Could taking the domain be presented as a virtuous defence of free speech, even though the domain was not necessary for the speech to take place?


There is a whole thread on here about freedom of speech in its own right:
https://www.namepros.com/threads/free-speech.1129018/

The associations this domain has brought to Epik.com continue to cause controversy:
https://www.namepros.com/threads/whats-going-on-with-epik-and-rob-monster.1128724/

 

[frank-germany]

Has anyone ever heard of a homeless domain?

A lot of the discussion here has focused on freedom of speech issues - there is now a thread for that https://www.namepros.com/threads/free-speech.1129018/. and possibly this has obscured other issues.

There are also very significant domain ownership and investing issues here which really need exploring, and it would be good to see someone write up the facts of the case and the implications for domain investors. What money is risked or lost, how, by whom? The aftermath and legal lessons of this might need a whole new thread.

To continue existing Gab needs hosting for its content, and that has to be hosting whose ToS allows Gab's content. Gab does not require the domain gab.com to function - Gab can change domain whenever it likes, it would just lose a few links and a bit of branding, but since it is a membership site members would just go to whatever new address was given. But someone had bought the Gab.com domain for a lot of money, and what would they lose if the domain could not be used any more for that site, or no domain registrar would agree to take the domain?

According to Namebio, Gab.com changed hands for $220,000 on Flippa.com in September 2018.https://namebio.com/?s==kTOyYTO5AjM Info from Namepros has it that the domain was being purchased using an Escrow.com payment plan, in which case after learning that Namebio would normally remove the listing until the payments are completed.

It appears that Godaddy gave the domain owner 24 hours to move the domain elsewhere. When Escrow.com hold a domain for a payment plan, presumably they control the registrar account it is in and their name is in the Whois, and being the registrant makes them the owners as far as ICANN is concerned. Presumably the client directly controls the DNS settings, deciding which IP and website the domain is used for. So the client could change the DNS and stop the domain working with the current site. Could the registrant, Escrow.com, also step in and change DNS and disable the site? Certainly Godaddy could.

So could Escrow.com have simply said to Godaddy, ok, we will stop the domain working with the Gab website and just park it? Would that satisfy Godaddy?

And if Godaddy insisted the domain should leave Godaddy in 24 hours and it did not, what was actually going to happen? There seem to be several possibilities:

Domain repossessed by Godaddy - seems there are a lot of those, they just sit in limbo forever
Domain cancelled by Godaddy - would drop like any other, then presumably go to a dropcatching auction
Domain allowed to expire by Godaddy - drops, as above
Domain auctioned by Godaddy or listed for sale on Afternic
Domain parked or forwarded by Godaddy, pending further negotiations

Maybe @jberryhill would know what might happen there

In any case the domain rapidly moved to Uniregistry- could it have stayed there? Then it moved on to Epik.com, and the Gab.com site was kept alive. Is it quite possible some registrars would take the domain on condition it would no longer be used for the gab.com forum? Some on NP have raised the question, what if no one will take a domain? What happens to a homeless domain? Given enough forewarning, someone with the funds could create their own registry to give a domain a home. But most likely the domain would just drop.

Once the domain drops and is caught, does it get a fresh start or do registrars still not want it? Do they care if the original owner has spent a lot of money to re-acquire it?

The significant investor question is who risks losing money. Normally the registrant would just lose the full purchase price of the domain, and it's unlikely they insured against that loss. So they have a strong incentive to keep the domain alive. Where a purchase via payment plan is in place, does the seller lose all the rest of the payments or does the middleman, here Escrow.com, insure against that? Who is at fault for the loss of the domain and can they be pursued for reimbursement?

So we can see a strong financial incentive for several parties to keep the domain alive. Would they accept moving the domain to a registrar who set a condition that the domain could not be used for the existing forum? Would they provide inducements to a registrar to take the domain? Could taking the domain be presented as a virtuous defence of free speech, even though the domain was not necessary for the speech to take place?


There is a whole thread on here about freedom of speech in its own right:
https://www.namepros.com/threads/free-speech.1129018/

The associations this domain has brought to Epik.com continue to cause controversy:
https://www.namepros.com/threads/whats-going-on-with-epik-and-rob-monster.1128724/

thanks a lot @carob

all these are very urgent questions
that need to be clearified for the industrie to survive

 

[carob]

One other point specific to Gab.com, since Epik also offer escrow-like services and buying domains by instalments: does Gab.com still have a payment plan via Escrow.com in place, or have Escrow.com exited and left Epik.com as the party holding the domain in escrow and collecting payments?

Because you do have to ask what responsibilities the Escrow service provider has to ensure the seller does not lose payments or the domain. If the domain is used in way that makes it likely to be cancelled and all value lost, can Escrow.com intervene or intervene on behalf of the seller? For examplle by changing DNS so the domain is not used in way that puts it at risk.

The whole area of how a domain can be damaged or lost when leased or sold in instalments seems unexplored, so far.

 

[offthehandle]

Huge risk in selling on installments - imo. Good luck with that.

Who decides what malicious domains are? and how?

Seems that the court of public opinion lately. The EU gov't? The US Gov't? NZ?

Rob posted this somewhere before:

The Registrar of Last Resort (RoLR) is a non-profit organisation that seeks to quarantine malicious domains. It will:

• Work closely with ICANN, Registries, Registrars and the DNS community to mitigate the impact of malicious domain names.
• Increase our collaboration with other key security organisations and researchers to share discoveries and analysis.
• Develop and release whitepapers and reports based on our research.
• Further develop our website to provide information and reports to the interested public.
• Participate in future security conferences and workgroups.
• Increase our communication with the public.

Basically, maybe in the future in the EU and they don't like you, they take your domain away.
http://www.rolr.eu/

There are Orphanages all over the internet: https://zonefiles.io/compromised-domain-list/

66.212.148.115 was the IP address of "NS1.SeizedServers.com" in early January, thousands parked here- but I cannot see it today, you might check on your end.

https://www.ice.gov/doclib/news/releases/2011/111128washingtondc.pdf

This news came in a few hours ago today, MS went to court and...

https://noticeofpleadings.com/phosphorus/

 

[Rob Monster]

Huge risk in selling on installments - imo. Good luck with that.

Who decides what malicious domains are? and how?

Seems that the court of public opinion lately. The EU gov't? The US Gov't? NZ?

Rob posted this somewhere before:

The Registrar of Last Resort (RoLR) is a non-profit organisation that seeks to quarantine malicious domains. It will:

• Work closely with ICANN, Registries, Registrars and the DNS community to mitigate the impact of malicious domain names.
• Increase our collaboration with other key security organisations and researchers to share discoveries and analysis.
• Develop and release whitepapers and reports based on our research.
• Further develop our website to provide information and reports to the interested public.
• Participate in future security conferences and workgroups.
• Increase our communication with the public.

Basically, maybe in the future in the EU and they don't like you, they take your domain away.
http://www.rolr.eu/

There are Orphanages all over the internet: https://zonefiles.io/compromised-domain-list/

66.212.148.115 was the IP address of "NS1.SeizedServers.com" in early January, thousands parked here- but I cannot see it today, you might check on your end.

https://www.ice.gov/doclib/news/releases/2011/111128washingtondc.pdf

This news came in a few hours ago today, MS went to court and...

https://noticeofpleadings.com/phosphorus/

The Gab.com domain was paid off in the meantime. I know that much.

However, when things went down in October, there was a hot-mess in place where Gab.com had a registrant, a lender, a lessee, an escrow agent and a registrar all with valid claims on the domain. We did manage to come in and clean that up, and thankfully everyone cooperated there and nobody took a financial hit other than Gab being off-line for ~10 days.

As for the topic of Registrar of Last Resort, I have spoken with Benedict Addis, and think I have some vague understanding of their charter. He was keen to avoid me at ICANN Kobe but we did talk on the phone before that where we indicated that we should meet in Kobe. So, I am not convinced that we have a straight story there yet. I have accused of them being a digital gulag or GitMo. I stand by that.

Shadow Server, The US Department of Justice in Pittsburgh, Registrar of Last Resort, INTERPOL, and, I think, Georgetown University, all seem to have a pretty cozy relationship. Epik will also work with them if it comes down to dealing with actual criminals. People who hurt other people's feelings are not criminals so we have provided them with safe harbor.

One gray area is the issue of online pharmacies. We have stood up to Legitscript several times, and they have stopped bothering us. Since my wife is a doctor, I don't take the topic lightly. We earn chump change being a registrar to people in this industry. If there is a court order, we'll enforce it. The thing is, Legitscript never brings a court order so we have to be judge and sheriff. To which I say, "no thanks".

 

[offthehandle]

Epik will also work with them if it comes down to dealing with actual criminals. People who hurt other people's feelings are not criminals so we have provided them with safe harbor.

Exactly, common sense illegal is illegal. But just look what happened in NZ knee jerk decision making, criminalizing possession of a video of a horrible event. Look how rapidly a few powerful people censor and create laws and legal precedence. Does NZ think they can dictate their laws around the world now?

I just posted together several examples of domain confiscation for the previous posters rhetorical questions. The Microsoft case I read the pdfs today and didnt realize it took them since 2013 to get to the criminal activity takedowns.

What concerns me is how domains like in the case of gab would have been handled had you not gotten involved. Is your company the only one available for controversial domains? Probably. It’s a crazy, ultra hyper sensitive world we live in. Look at the wrath you have even received on the other thread. All this politically-correct nonsense and cultural bias of your accepting these hot potato domains, at least you have accepted them. Had that you not stuck your neck out and accepted gab, you could have been left alone and no instant attention from that Huffington hack author publishing non journalism about you, and all the rest, etc. Looking forward to this entire PR mess ending.

For the record, I have no personal or business ties to you or Epik, I never contacted you in person or phone, never said anything positive or negative before about Epik before these forum posts, never met you, have no domains with Epik, not one dollar spent there. Nor do I even have a gab account, nor look at Gab, nor care who says what there. Its their business and their right to exist under the US 1st amendment, not some “world consensus”. Just like I decide personally not to pollute my mind watching violent videos or horror movies. Youtube has lots of garbage that they host too. One mouse click solution is all it takes for logical people to self censor by their own standards and beliefs, without innane laws and intervention by the social justice people.

I am a firm believer in all free speech, not what some mob groupthink population or tech company like Facebook or Google says. Thank you for having a strong stance on this subject at hand.

 

[Rob Monster]

Exactly, common sense illegal is illegal. But just look what happened in NZ knee jerk decision making, criminalizing possession of a video of a horrible event. Look how rapidly a few powerful people censor and create laws and legal precedence. Does NZ think they can dictate their laws around the world now?

I just posted together several examples of domain confiscation for the previous posters rhetorical questions. The Microsoft case I read the pdfs today and didnt realize it took them since 2013 to get to the criminal activity takedowns.

What concerns me is how domains like in the case of gab would have been handled had you not gotten involved. Is your company the only one available for controversial domains? Probably. It’s a crazy, ultra hyper sensitive world we live in. Look at the wrath you have even received on the other thread. All this politically-correct nonsense and cultural bias of your accepting these hot potato domains, at least you have accepted them. Had that you not stuck your neck out and accepted gab, you could have been left alone and no instant attention from that Huffington hack author publishing non journalism about you, and all the rest, etc. Looking forward to this entire PR mess ending.

For the record, I have no personal or business ties to you or Epik, I never contacted you in person or phone, never said anything positive or negative before about Epik before these forum posts, never met you, have no domains with Epik, not one dollar spent there. Nor do I even have a gab account, nor look at Gab, nor care who says what there. Its their business and their right to exist under the US 1st amendment, not some “world consensus”. Just like I decide personally not to pollute my mind watching violent videos or horror movies. Youtube has lots of garbage that they host too. One mouse click solution is all it takes for logical people to self censor by their own standards and beliefs, without innane laws and intervention by the social justice people.

I am a firm believer in all free speech, not what some mob groupthink population or tech company like Facebook or Google says. Thank you for having a strong stance on this subject at hand.

Thanks @offthehandle.

To answer your question, there are relatively few registrars that are independent and are prepared to accept and sustain lawfully-engaged "hot potato" domains. It is not without downside.

I know of these:

Internet.bs was one of them but no longer independent.

Tucows has provided safe harbor for a number of domains but as a public entity with institutional investors will have to manage their PR.

Godaddy is still the registrar of many hot potato domains. They will need to redeem their reputation when it come to free speech. The track record is not great there.

I am not really aware of others, frankly. There was some discussion about an "Internet Bill of Rights" but that ran out of gas right after the ink was dry on Uniregistry's press release. Talk is cheap.

The truth is that a lot of people follow the money and are relatively quick to compromise on principles and values. I get it. I used to be like that too until the Lord dealt with me.

 

[offthehandle]

The truth is that a lot of people follow the money and are relatively quick to compromise on principles and values. I get it.

GD is publically traded, so they need to meet the status quo of shareholders, hence my previous comments about BLM, yet not Gab. Both controversial, yet politically tougher to deal with the reverse racial bias, and what the mob might do to them and their share prices in this age of PC culture.

 

[offthehandle]

More silicon valley power grabbing. Newest from Twitter management.

https://thehill.com/policy/technolo...ring-labeling-trump-tweets-that-violate-rules

 

[bmugford]

More silicon valley power grabbing. Newest from Twitter management.

https://thehill.com/policy/technolo...ring-labeling-trump-tweets-that-violate-rules

Also - https://www.apnews.com/2983742f2c494b59bb104cfa97903f02

In fairness tough, if Trump was just a normal citizen he would have probably already had his account suspended years ago for many of the bullying, demeaning, berating, mocking, things he has said about individual people, groups, etc.

At the end of the day these are private companies.
They can do business with who they please.

Brad

 

[offthehandle]

Also - https://www.apnews.com/2983742f2c494b59bb104cfa97903f02

But at the end of the day these are private companies.
They can do business with who they please.

Brad

Well aware, but do not read Facebook, another slam to free speech, imo.

You mean Private monopolies. Remember Microsoft settled with the DOJ. Before Netscape they did all sorts of interesting things to small companies.

The public as a whole has decided they want free stuff, so Google captured market share, very wise business move. Twitter, Facebook also. Competition has been either been gobbled up in M & A stunts, or in the case of Bing, not a real competitor or as accurate or as large a scapper of data as Google is.

So now, Twitter and the SPLC shall decide if what the President posts is ok. I have to laugh, like Pelosi censoring him.

I hope he goes off twitter, to his own website and abandons censored media.

Not a difficult thing to do. Great for the internet domaining too, more small websites, decentralized.

 

[Rob Monster]

Also -
At the end of the day these are private companies.
They can do business with who they please.

Brad

And that is all cool so long as they don't try to impede the customers they boot from doing business with other vendors. There is a difference between "NIMBY" and "Not-on-this-planet". There are folks that want to prevent legally compliant platforms from being able to operate at all. Deplatforming of lawful providers should concern any domainer who hopes to hold and use domains and be able to sell it to someone other than a silicon valley monolith who will have a finite appetite for online brands.

 

[offthehandle]

many of the bullying, demeaning, berating, mocking, things he has said about individual people, groups, etc.

He has fought back all the haters. Look at the Russia collusion thing. No apologies from people like Brennan slamming him for 2 years. Adam Shiff, he called him shit. I don’t agree with that behavior to stoop to Adams level.
Brad, I will stop now, as its not a Political thread.

 

[bmugford]

Rob,

Has Epik, not even once in their history, suspended or banned a customer for behavior that while it might be legal was morally reprehensible or legal but against their TOS? I am just wondering.

Maybe you guys should support bringing back the fairness doctrine then, or support a new internet fairness doctrine.

Though, it would also mean platforms on the extreme right would have to allow opposing voices as well.
It work both ways.

Brad

 

[Internet.Domains]

Rob,

Has Epik, not even once in their history, suspended or banned a customer for behavior that while it might be legal was morally reprehensible or legal but against their TOS? I am just wondering.

Maybe you guys should support bringing back the fairness doctrine then, or support a new internet fairness doctrine.

Though, it would also mean platforms on the extreme right would have to allow opposing voices as well.
It work both ways.

Brad

Brad, what is your definition of "extreme right?"

Reason I ask is I have heard it defined, unjustly, as patriotism, pro-Constitution and pro-capitalism.

 

[bmugford]

Brad, what is your definition of "extreme right?"

Reason I ask is I have heard it defined, unjustly, as patriotism, pro-Constitution and pro-capitalism.

To me the extreme right is people or groups that are spouting hate speech while also bordering on the verge of criminality. This might include direct violence, inciting violence, threatening violence, etc.

Just being stupid and uninformed is not a crime.

I will say I have found many self-labeled "Patriots" are idiots though. Actual people who believe in the Constitution just do that without the need for a label.

I can't even count how many pro-Constitution patriots were against freedom of expression when it comes to Kaepernick kneeling during the national anthem. A true Patriot should be supporting those rights. Once again though, rights a private company is not legally required to provide.

Brad