Altright.com domain seized by Go Daddy

Gab.ai almost got deplatformed for stupidly choosing an Australian Domain Host. Any hosting service based in the Anglosphere or Five Eyes countries is going to be converged and willing to throw your blog or website under the bus in a flash.

I believe there are two separate issues here. Unless you run your own servers, you need a domain host. In this case it was GoDaddy which is converged and willing to shut down Spencer's account for Terms of Service violations (which can mean anything and everything). So, at the end of the day, Spencer still owns AltRight.com and he can probably port it out to another hosting company.

The problem then is finding a company that won't buckle under political pressure for hosting your content. I think Zerohedge uses a host in Switzerland. Latin America or Singapore might also be good locations since they don't really give a shit about SJW talking points.

The last hurdle is the TLD -- .com and .org are TLDs assigned to the United States so they can get yanked by the alphabet agencies. This is what happened to Backpage but not AltRight. It's been several years since I looked into TLDs but .co (Colombia) with a .com mirror and a non-SJW foreign host seemed like the best setup for a controversial blog.
 

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
This is problem that will have to be dealt with inevitably, one way or the other.

You can take your business to an out-of-Anglosphere provider (the ridiculous irony) but what's to say that Soros or equivalent doesn't pony up 1000x your rate to have you booted and then pass the glory to whatever group of asshole activists want to write your provider a flowery letter?

This is the decline. We are close the end of the "enjoy it" phase.
 

Days of Broken Arrows

Crow
Gold Member
glugger said:
AnonymousBosch said:
.......
As such, they believe they are morally-righteous, of course, without a moral core based in Truth, it always breaks down.
This reminds me of a point my mother made against one of the arguments for gay marriage - "It's two consenting adults, there's nothing wrong with it."
She'd then ask them about their views on polygamy, then incestuous relationships, then bestiality. Most people would become uncomfortable and object to one of the questions, and draw their own line in the sand.

She'd then repeat back their original argument - "It's just consenting adults, there's nothing wrong with it." And logically there wasn't, but that didn't make them any less uncomfortable. Everyone drew their own line in the sand, each shifting as they saw fit.

She'd then explain how her position was based on the bible, and it being the truth, would never shift.

AnonymousBosch said:

Essentially fruit of the poisonous tree, just from a moral perspective.

Many would view the actions that the right are now taking as a 'trolley problem:'

There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person tied up on the side track. You have two options:

Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track.

Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.

Which is the most ethical choice?

I've always argued that you should do nothing, as 'An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself.'

But that doesn't stop people from pulling the lever.

"This reminds me of a point my mother made against one of the arguments for gay marriage - "It's two consenting adults, there's nothing wrong with it." She'd then ask them about their views on polygamy, then incestuous relationships, then bestiality..."

Here is the liberal/white knight/cuckservative "logic." Try to follow along. It won't be easy.

1). Gay marriage should be legal because it's two consenting adults.

2). Prostitution should be illegal because even though it's two adults, men coerce women into doing things and women are too weak-willed by nature to resist or understand the implications thereof. So, they are unable to "consent" as adults (actual example of that argument here). This also goes for drunk sex, "regret sex," and a bunch of other things.

3). Women are every bit the equal of men and should be our doctors, judges, lawmakers, and CEOs.

Got that?
 

CJ_W

Pelican
Fortis said:
I am sure roosh has a plan but we can all take part by severely reducing the number of inflammatory things we say. Let's help eachother out here since we all value this forum greatly.

The forum wouldnt be shut down because of what people say here because most people dont say the @wrong [email protected] but RoK could get the forums shut down if the forums use the same hosting service as RoK. Thing is, it wouldn't be because of the articles...

It would be because of the commenters, the RoK comments is pretty much Richard spencers stormfront and altright.com all mixed together in one shit sandwich.
 

Bill Brasky

Kingfisher
Gold Member
The one thing to bear in mind is that any narrative pushed by the left is only to push what they believe to be in their interests. Government control, censorship, and centralization are in the lefts' interest at least in the short-term. Expecting them to have high-time preferences (long-term view) is futile.

I notice a common thing on right wing site threads is to take some sort of comfort that they left will see the err of their ways at some point in the future. Maybe they will, but I wouldn't count on it. And even if they did, it would be too late. It's like they commit suicide by jumping of the cliff and then mid-air they have an overwhelming desire to live. It doesn't matter, they are past the point of no return.

The only solution to these censorship campaigns is to develop and begin using alternative, uncensorable platforms. Everything else is just shaking your fist at gamma rays in anger.
 

Meadowlark

Hummingbird
Gold Member
I stripped out the personal details but looks like he owns it now:

Raw WHOIS Record

Domain Name: ALTRIGHT.COM
Registry Domain ID: 1946587469_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.ilovewww.com
Registrar URL: http://www.ilovewww.com
Updated Date: 2018-07-22T02:24:28Z
Creation Date: 2015-07-13T15:20:52Z
Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2019-07-13T15:20:52Z
Registrar: Shinjiru MSC Sdn Bhd
Registrar IANA ID: 1741
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited
Registry Registrant ID: Not Available From Registry
Registrant Name: Richard Spencer
Registrant Organization: AltRight Corporation
Registrant Street: PO Box
Registrant City: Arlington
Registrant State/Province: Virginia
Registrant Postal Code:
Registrant Country: US
Registrant Phone: +1.
Registrant Phone Ext:
Registrant Fax:
Registrant Fax Ext:
Registrant Email: @gmail.com
Registry Admin ID: Not Available From Registry

Name Server: ns1.selectel.org
Name Server: ns2.selectel.org
Name Server: ns3.selectel.org
Name Server: ns4.selectel.org
DNSSEC: Unsigned
Registrar Abuse Contact Email: [email protected]w.com
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +603 2031 8850
URL of the ICANN WHOIS Data Problem Reporting System: http://wdprs.internic.net/
>>> Last update of WHOIS database: 2018-10-25T20:12:11Z <<<
 

Hypno

Crow
Too fat to dodge a Dodge, lol.

BTW, the First Amendment is a limit in government power, not private actors. So go Daddy can rescind their hosting but not take their property rights in the domain name. Being a registrar is a government function so this may be unconstitutional.
 

Uzisuicide

Kingfisher
Gold Member
^^^ Yes, but if you have a service that is open to the public such as a restaraunt then you can't by law deny service from groups you don't like.
 

Meadowlark

Hummingbird
Gold Member
Hypno said:
Too fat to dodge a Dodge, lol.

BTW, the First Amendment is a limit in government power, not private actors. So go Daddy can rescind their hosting but not take their property rights in the domain name. Being a registrar is a government function so this may be unconstitutional.

If that was true then the daily stormer wouldn't have been chased off of about 5 different domains.
 
AnonymousBosch said:
Know your enemy:

- Godaddy has a long history of censoring sites;

- Godaddy hasn't made a profit since 2009; and has lost $531 Million since 2012 yet, like most of the Narrative-Pushing Silicon Valley companies, somehow still exists.

- Current CEO Blake Irving (ex-Microsoft, ex-Yahoo) is True Believer (Gender Gap, Women of Colour Coding, sponsoring a female Nascar Driver).

- They're Anti-Net Neutrality.

Why support the enemy? Because it's everywhere, and into everything, you have no choice.

Note one other interesting fact: Blake Irving is the son of an FBI Agent.

Did not know and thank you! What are the alternatives?
 

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
Uzisuicide said:
^^^ Yes, but if you have a service that is open to the public such as a restaraunt then you can't by law deny service from groups you don't like.

Laws vary by nation but generally you are only prohibited from discriminating on service for reasons of race, religion, sexuality and that other PC stuff.
 

Hypno

Crow
Uzisuicide said:
^^^ Yes, but if you have a service that is open to the public such as a restaraunt then you can't by law deny service from groups you don't like.

You are sort of correct.

If you are deemed a public accomodation, like a restaurant, you can't deny service to someone based on their status as a protected class.

Citing terms of service is a way around protected-class-discrimination that has been effective up to now.
 
Top