The Daily Stormer is finally off the Internet. Well, the public Internet anyway.
Last week, the hate-spewing white supremacist site lost its domain name registration when it was kicked off first GoDaddy and then Google for violating terms of its contracts.
Activists had been trying for years to get the Stormer suspended. After the site’s vicious post attacking Heather Heyer, the protester who was killed in Charlottesville, Virginia, the domain registrars decided they had had enough.
The site relaunched on a Russian server, but swiftly vanished from that host too. Now the Stormer exists only with an anonymous “.onion” address on the Tor network. Good luck tracking it down.
Meanwhile, a Twitter campaign naming the companies that provide the Daily Stormer with various Web services has deprived the site of Web security, cloud computing and other technology.
The fury of the techies, once aroused, is awesome to behold. Tech companies ranging from Airbnb to Reddit and Facebook, Inc have been purging other perceived supremacists from the ranks of their users.
The libertarian part of me ought to be fine with all of this. Apart from the most exceptional circumstances, such as invidious discrimination, a business should be free to contract with whom it pleases, and I will shed no tears for the Daily Stormer, which fully earned its expulsion from rational discourse.
One might protest — correctly — that there is a lot of evil in the world, but history teaches that Nazis and white supremacists are a special case. When their views vanish, we will all be better off for it.
However, I find myself troubled. For one thing, as tech columnist Will Oremus pointed out in online Slate Magazine, the same companies being told that they should not serve all comers made essentially the opposite argument in their campaign during former US president Barack Obama’s administration to defeat the Stop Online Piracy Act.
Having decided that they can pick and choose customers, the tech companies will be ill-placed to reverse field should the US Congress once more try to crack down on them for hosting sites that make unlicensed use of intellectual property.
Moreover, it is worrisome that so many activists are cheering the demise of the Daily Stormer not on the narrow ground that white supremacy is a special case, but on the more general ground that groups promoting “hatred” should have no place on the Web.
Given the contemporary left’s broad and wondrously flexible definition of the word “hate,” the implications of that particular slogan — calling it an argument would be too charitable — are unsettling.
The triumphal tumult on social media naturally leads one to wonder which groups that progressives deem wrong on the issues might be the subject of the next banning campaign.
This leads to my largest concern: Libertarians tend to worry about concentrations of power in the hands of the state. There is no consensus about the danger of concentrations of power in private hands, but when the private hands in question control access to the principal media of communication in the world, one has to hesitate when they decide that not everyone should be granted entree, for the power they are exercising is almost state-like.
My concern is not with the neo-Nazis, who fully deserve both their opprobrium and their sudden Internet obscurity, and there is nothing new in using the refusal to deal as a tool for enforcing social conformity. I am old enough to remember signs in store windows barring boys whose hair was too long and women whose skirts were too short.
The problem is that unlike the social nonconformists of my youth, it is not as though those who are booted off the Web can go shop across the street. When the gatekeepers of the Internet turn on you, you are effectively done.
That is an awful lot of power to place in a small number of hands.
Those who run tech companies are very smart and the ones I know are all wonderful people, but by anointing them judges of who should be allowed to use the Web, we place enormous trust in their moral perspicacity. It is no knock on the techies to ask whether anyone should wield that authority.
Cloudflare, Inc chief executive officer Matthew Prince seemed to recognize the problem in an internal memorandum obtained by Gizmodo.
“I woke up this morning in a bad mood and decided to kick them off the Internet. It was a decision I could make because I’m the CEO of a major Internet infrastructure company,” he said.
He added that he was uneasy with his decision and that the Internet was better off if such companies as his remained “content neutral.”
After all, to borrow from Salvor Hardin — whose many epigrams all geeks should know — “An atom-blaster is a good weapon, but it can point both ways.”
I hope the tumult will die down and that the bannings stop with the Daily Stormer and its kin, who regularly serve up hatred and vitriol in support of vicious ideologies that cost many millions of lives.
I hope, in other words, that people will be able to draw reasonable lines, but where the exercise of the power to shut people up is concerned, that is rarely a safe bet.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Stephen Carter is a Bloomberg View columnist. He is a professor of law at Yale University and was a clerk to then-US Supreme Court justice Thurgood Marshall.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers