SoylentNews

"Daily Stormer" Changes Hosts and Site Name; Gets DDoSed

posted by martyb on Saturday August 26 2017, @05:20PM   

aristarchus writes:

The "Daily Stormer", a neo-Nazi website that has been having trouble staying online since Charlottesville, has once again been shutdown.

According to The Verge:

The neo-Nazi site Daily Stormer briefly returned to the web today, using a new URL and a string of new hosts to dodge the bans that took it off the internet last week. The site reappeared this morning at the address Punished-stormer.com, apparently using Dreamhost as both a host and DNS provider.

[note: url modified]

Shortly after the new site became public, Anonymous groups began a denial-of-service attack against it, targeting the Dreamhost DNS infrastructure that makes the site accessible to the rest of the web. The result was nearly two hours of intermittent downtime for the countless sites using Dreamhost's DNS infrastructure.

In WWII, things like this were called "collateral damage", where innocent casualties were necessary in order to get at the Nazis themselves. But is this sort of action legitimate on the internet? Especially by non-governmental organizations?

Also reported at https://www.wordfence.com/blog/2017/08/dreamhost-ddos-attack/
Related story: https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/21/16180614/charlottesville-daily-stormer-alt-right-internet-domain

---

Original Submission

• The EU is bewildered as to free speech (Score: 3, Informative) by fyngyrz on Sunday August 27 2017, @01:33PM

  by fyngyrz (6567) on Sunday August 27 2017, @01:33PM (#559830) Journal

  [The Paradox of Tolerance] raises questions concerning (a.o.) free speech which you seem to dismiss out of hand.

  I do dismiss them out of hand. From your cite:

  If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

  In the context of free speech, that assumes that allowing speech means we are not prepared to defend a tolerate society from action (this is implicit in the phrase "unlimited tolerance.) Which is nonsensical. Of course we are. Speech will not destroy the tolerant; only action can do that. US society is invested in letting a person speak, and then speaking right back to them in a contrary manner when that is called for, and taking action when that is called for, which is specifically when intolerant action raises its head.

  Having said that, there's no 100% good on either side of the free-speech/repression dichotomy; but the good on the side of free speech far outweighs the goods of repression of same; conversely, the evils of repression far outweigh the evils of free speech.

  the EU and the USA have quite a different approach how to deal with this paradox practically when it comes to hate speech.

  The EU is doing it wrong. Hell, the US is also doing it wrong... but we're doing it a good bit better, anyway.

  Parent

  Starting Score:	1		point
  Moderation		+1
  Informative=1, Total=1
  Extra 'Informative' Modifier		0
  Karma-Bonus Modifier		+1
  Total Score:		3