That's true, but it's a different thing. Blocking a site on ISP level prevents users from viewing the site as opposed to blocking creators from presenting the site. It's a subtle but important difference.
Also, according to Wikipedia over a few days the site had its domain registration revoked by several providers, its Youtube channel, Discord, and Twitter accounts were banned, its links were censored on Facebook, and it was DDOSed by Anonymous.[1] If you look at the Wikipedia link it's actually nuts how much effort was put into silencing the site.
Yes, I'm aware of their various attempts, but their poor choice of companies (mainly from the west) makes me think they either didn't know about about shadier hosting options, or they wanted to keep up the victimization narrative. Why didn't they go for a .su or .ru subdomain and a russian hosting company? I'm sure putin would welcome them with open arms.
Societies have used shunning as a way to regulate themselves for thousands of years. There's no reason why we can't do the same thing on the Internet.
The only problem is that the power to shun is being concentrated into too few hands. A group that blames the Jews for literally everything[1] should be shunned, but it shouldn't just be up to one guy to decide that.
The Daily Stormer deserves everything they got. The fact that they've bounced from provider to provider means that the free market is operating correctly; they're being shunned. But as CDN's buy each other out, that gets to be less of a solution.
Nobody is arguing that they do. The question is whether CEOs can decide what their own companies host. Since being a Nazi is not a legally protected category they’re free to not help Nazis.
Again, this is not a hard problem once you shake the poor framing you’re stuck in. It’s not a question of legality because this isn’t the government preventing them from speaking and it doesn’t involve a legally protected class. It’s also not a question of some CEO preventing someone else from speaking. The only thing going on is a CEO saying they won’t help promote that speech, which is a basic right.
Of course it is a question of legality. It is a question of whether a CEO -- who has no democratic legitimacy -- should be allowed to decide what can be (in a manner that other people will actually read) published. And as I said, that their censorship is not perfect does not make a difference.
> and it doesn’t involve a legally protected class.
All your saying is that the CEOs' censorship is legal because it's legal.
Again, no CEO is preventing people from publishing things. You can setup your own server and publish anything you want unless it’s in a few illegal categories. Your position seems to be that your desire not to pay for hosting confers some sort of right to compel other people to pay for it but that’s simply not true.
"Nazi" is closely associated to the Holocaust, but you don't have to have killed someone to be a Nazi.
From Wikipedia:
Nazism is a form of fascism and showed that ideology's disdain for liberal democracy and the parliamentary system, but also incorporated fervent antisemitism, scientific racism, and eugenics into its creed.
From that definition, Daily Stormer certainly was home to Nazi's, perhaps more appropriately "Neo-Nazi"
When you say it’s ok to censor something because it is [hateful | racist | sexist | obscene | dangerous], then you’re opening a pretty bad door. You’ve declared it ok to censor—now we’re just arguing over the list of adjectives worthy of censorship. It doesn’t take much to add things like “embarrassing to politicians,” “profit-destroying,” or “against popular opinion” to that list. Who knows, you may hold what you think are benign beliefs and opinions today that someone deems censorable tomorrow and there will be nothing you can do about it. No internet for you, round-earther!
