In this instance this comic completely misses the point. Notice how it says "or get banned from an internet community...". They got banned, they didn't like twitters policy, whatever it was: they...
In this instance this comic completely misses the point. Notice how it says "or get banned from an internet community...".
They got banned, they didn't like twitters policy, whatever it was: they made their own alternative because they weren't happy on twitter, and people rightfully repeatedly told them to fuck off. So they did.
But that still isn't enough.
Again, not related. A website can still exist without paypal and godaddy. Those services are entirely free to do what they please. Setup your own creditcard handling and your own hosting if you...
Again, not related. A website can still exist without paypal and godaddy. Those services are entirely free to do what they please. Setup your own creditcard handling and your own hosting if you feel so inclined.
Your comic says "we don't want you on our platform" but what you are saying is "we don't want your platform to exist"
Maybe. Or maybe not because he is a crazy terrorist.
While I find the companies' decision reasonable (I'd probably do the same if they were my customers), selling things or services to someone is hardly supporting them. If this website was using...
They are free to find pro-neo nazi companies that will support them.
While I find the companies' decision reasonable (I'd probably do the same if they were my customers), selling things or services to someone is hardly supporting them. If this website was using paid private Github repos, does it mean that Github was supporting them? Or if they like to drink Coca Cola while working?
Banning a customer is a choice companies should be able to make in certain circumstances, but implying that not doing so means that they're supporting the customers is a problematic approach.
Gabs twitter is terrible it's just them whining about how tech companies are evil and how we need regulation to protect them from the free market and how everybody are fascists lol. Then they...
Gabs twitter is terrible it's just them whining about how tech companies are evil and how we need regulation to protect them from the free market and how everybody are fascists lol. Then they unironically claim in quotes "GET TO THE POLLS AND VOTE OR RISK LOSING THE BILL OF RIGHTS IN THE UNITED STATES TO LITERAL COMMUNISTS." Ah yes it's a well known fact that communists love the free market...
it's really is funny to watch the about-face that takes place with organizations that love the free market once they realize that the free market isn't a one way street and that the free market...
it's really is funny to watch the about-face that takes place with organizations that love the free market once they realize that the free market isn't a one way street and that the free market can decide to no longer support their venture. seems to happen without fail with every ultra-libertarian free speech website.
previous thread here gab has gone down for an indeterminate period of time as of this morning, although as of now it appears to have a new hosting service secured. nonetheless, gab hasn't...
gab has gone down for an indeterminate period of time as of this morning, although as of now it appears to have a new hosting service secured. nonetheless, gab hasn't weathered the sudden uptick in media attention well. having already lost their CTO yesterday, gab has now been kicked off both medium and godaddy, and seems likely to be blacklisted from any other services they attempt to make use of. they've doubled down on their commitment to freedom as recently as two hours ago, but you can tell they're feeling the hurt just from this tweet, which reads:
In the last 24 hours Gab has been banned from these internet infrastructure providers for supporting free speech and helping law enforcement bring justice to a terrorist:@joyent@paypal@stripe@medium@godaddy
Are you paying attention yet @realDonaldTrump and @parscale?
better days might be ahead for the website yet, but to say the least it's not looking so great.
There's a place for Gab's userbase. It's called Stormfront. They should be using that instead of polluting the rest of the internet with their fascist bullshit.
There's a place for Gab's userbase. It's called Stormfront. They should be using that instead of polluting the rest of the internet with their fascist bullshit.
ICANN doesn't sell domains, they license registrars to do that. So you still need to find a registrar willing to let you register with them. After that, you still need to host your content...
Does anyone know how difficult it is to run and host a website by yourself?
ICANN doesn't sell domains, they license registrars to do that. So you still need to find a registrar willing to let you register with them.
After that, you still need to host your content somewhere, for which you will need an IP address. You can either use a hosting provider (that's willing to host you) or you can try buying a static IP from your ISP and serve it from home (which is against most ISP's ToS).
ISPs will happily sell you a business connection regardless of zoning (because zoning doesn't matter for connection tier) or if you even have a business. ISPs will generally terminate your...
or you can try buying a static IP from your ISP and serve it from home (which is against most ISP's ToS).
ISPs will happily sell you a business connection regardless of zoning (because zoning doesn't matter for connection tier) or if you even have a business. ISPs will generally terminate your connection if you run a business on a home connection, though, and proactively incentivize getting a business line by offering static IPs, faster support, and better upload speeds, which are usually unavailable to home users.
So you still need to find a registrar willing to let you register with them
I think Gab should just contact Stormfront's registrar, that's probably a good starting point.
I haven't heard of Gab until today, so I don't know what they're about and what goes on on their network, but honestly, seeing companies throw other companies under the bus like that really puts...
I haven't heard of Gab until today, so I don't know what they're about and what goes on on their network, but honestly, seeing companies throw other companies under the bus like that really puts me off putting my trust in them.
Why would I use GoDaddy as a registrar or host when I can use another company that won't give me the boot as soon as they start disagreeing with me?
It's the exact opposite for me. I generally despise godaddy, but the fact they are taking a stand against a platform explicitly designed to host and allow the propagation of hate speech made me...
It's the exact opposite for me. I generally despise godaddy, but the fact they are taking a stand against a platform explicitly designed to host and allow the propagation of hate speech made me respect them a hell of a lot more.
Why would I use GoDaddy as a registrar or host when I can use another company that won't give me the boot as soon as they start disagreeing with me?
Slippery slope arguments are considered logical fallacies for a reason. Unless your site similarly hosts abhorrent shit like calls for violent uprising, murder and genocide as gab did, you will be fine.
gab is a social media website which takes a hardline stance on the protection of free speech. as a consequence of that, the site has attracted an audience of primarily right-wingers, far-righters,...
I haven't heard of Gab until today, so I don't know what they're about and what goes on on their network, but honestly, seeing companies through other companies under the bus like that really puts me off putting my trust in them.
gab is a social media website which takes a hardline stance on the protection of free speech. as a consequence of that, the site has attracted an audience of primarily right-wingers, far-righters, and neo-nazis/white nationalists/white supremacists who have been disenfranchised by twitter and other services. to give you a comparison, it is to twitter what voat is to reddit.
since it's almost absolutist in its protection of free speech, a lot of the content of the website is openly racist, sexist, misogynistic, bigoted, and just generally hateful; that's not to say there aren't some decent users of the site of course, since i'm sure there are. but it's fairly unambiguous that the website has content that most companies have no desire to associate with or host, which is part of why you're seeing companies shut down their presence elsewhere. it's bad PR.
This underplays it a bit. It was designed for, intended for, and targeted at hardcore right wingers who were getting banned from Twitter. Anyone's who's spent time on twitter realizes you can get...
This underplays it a bit. It was designed for, intended for, and targeted at hardcore right wingers who were getting banned from Twitter. Anyone's who's spent time on twitter realizes you can get away with pretty extreme political views as long as you aren't spouting racial slurs. These are the people who Gab is made for.
"Free Speech" has become the lazy rallying cry for outright white supremacists on the internet, since open racial slurs and child porn are damn near the only things that'll get you banned from the mainstream social media sites.
oh no i'm well aware of who its practical target audience is at this point and the fact that it's realistically just the twitter equivalent of Voat, but that can be construed as an opinionated...
This underplays it a bit. It was designed for, intended for, and targeted at hardcore right wingers who were getting banned from Twitter. Anyone's who's spent time on twitter realizes you can get away with pretty extreme political views as long as you aren't spouting racial slurs. These are the people who Gab is made for.
oh no i'm well aware of who its practical target audience is at this point and the fact that it's realistically just the twitter equivalent of Voat, but that can be construed as an opinionated lens through which to analyze the site, and my intent was to be somewhat objective here instead of coming off as partisan.
Moreover, a quick WHOIS request will generally tell you which domain registrar a domain name is associated with, and a reverse IP lookup can often tell you which hosting provider or ISP an IP...
Moreover, a quick WHOIS request will generally tell you which domain registrar a domain name is associated with, and a reverse IP lookup can often tell you which hosting provider or ISP an IP address belongs to. This information is very typically publicly available, so it's generally a relatively simple task to associate a website with the registrar and host.
This is a large part of why these companies would want to take action. It would be one thing if this information wasn't publicly available as then the information wouldn't be associated with their brand, but it is and has a direct impact on their image and potentially their bottom line.
A free market solution means free market forces, and public image is one of those forces.
I don't think they threw them under the bus at all. Two businesses entered into a vendor agreement--i.e. the Terms of Service--and the customer violated part of the agreement. As long as you...
I don't think they threw them under the bus at all. Two businesses entered into a vendor agreement--i.e. the Terms of Service--and the customer violated part of the agreement.
Why would I use GoDaddy as a registrar or host when I can use another company that won't give me the boot as soon as they start disagreeing with me?
As long as you aren't a white supremacist inciting violence on the site that they're hosting for you, then you really have nothing to worry about. That's quite a bit further than just "disagreeing" with someone.
Doesn’t seem like GoDaddy is asking too much of its customers.
Although I agree with you, I think GoDaddy pulling their domain registration raises a very interesting dilemma. Is it their right? If that is in the TOS, then yes. But it makes it harder to argue...
Although I agree with you, I think GoDaddy pulling their domain registration raises a very interesting dilemma. Is it their right? If that is in the TOS, then yes. But it makes it harder to argue "don't like getting banned? Just make your own platform" when it may be difficult to find a registrar. (You can just use your IP address, but you can't use HTTPS, and without a domain, your website is unlikely to ever be able to gain any traction, effectively nullifying your message.)
Given that Stormfront and Alex Jones haven't had problems with their domain registrars, I'm sure Gab can find a registrar (maybe CloudFlare, they're also pretty absolutist about free speech), but it certainly makes the Internet seem a lot less free and open. I am not against what GoDaddy did, but it certainly weakens the "just make your own platform" argument (which I have used plenty of times before) when you can't just make your own registrar in the same way most people can't afford to make their own ISP (at least here in America).
It is definitely their right to dissociate with Gab and end the business relationship assuming the agreement permits. Telling users when they're banned to "just make your own platform" works if...
It is definitely their right to dissociate with Gab and end the business relationship assuming the agreement permits. Telling users when they're banned to "just make your own platform" works if you're not talking to white supremacists who want to incite violence online. Hate fat people? You too have a place online as long as there are no (major/publicized) calls to violence.
I definitely don't think GoDaddy and domain registrars in general should be the arbiters of online content, but the market is naturally making it hard for certain speech to exist on the internet because it's... well, shitty and indefensible.
Also aside from the more well known absolutist registrars you mentioned, I'm sure there are hundreds of similar (but obscure) options all around the world for Nazis to use. Just as trackers have domain-hopped over the years.
True. Looking at reddit, people are linking lots of registrars and hosting providers that explicitly state if it's not illegal, they will host it, no questions asked. It's just harder to find...
I'm sure there are hundreds of similar (but obscure) options all around the world for Nazis to use. Just as trackers have domain-hopped over the years.
True. Looking at reddit, people are linking lots of registrars and hosting providers that explicitly state if it's not illegal, they will host it, no questions asked. It's just harder to find these companies, presumably because they're not high-margin operations like GoDaddy.
I'm sure Gab will survive. I guess the question is if they'll police themselves any better. Fighting words are not protected speech.
simple answer: no. you need only look at their twitter. they've learned nothing and see absolutism as more important than trying to keep their users from becoming the american version of ISIS.
I guess the question is if they'll police themselves any better. Fighting words are not protected speech.
simple answer: no. you need only look at their twitter. they've learned nothing and see absolutism as more important than trying to keep their users from becoming the american version of ISIS.
On the flip side, let's say you're Jewish administrator working at GoDaddy. Are you obligated to keep coming in to work to help them host this content? What if you're the only admin left and...
On the flip side, let's say you're Jewish administrator working at GoDaddy. Are you obligated to keep coming in to work to help them host this content? What if you're the only admin left and without you, the site goes dark? I mean as long as we're doing slippery slope arguments, we may as well consider all of the stakeholders.
If an employee doesn't want to "keep coming in to work", of course they're allowed to quit, if that's what you're asking? If a sysadmin has a personal objection with a client they provision...
If an employee doesn't want to "keep coming in to work", of course they're allowed to quit, if that's what you're asking?
If a sysadmin has a personal objection with a client they provision service for, they'd forward it to legal/HR/the CEO/their boss... if a sysadmin tried to terminate service between the company and a client themselves, I would expect GoDaddy would fire them, or at the very least reprimand them.
Regardless, everything would be automated so no one working at GoDaddy even needs to know about so and so client registering whatever domain...
In addition to any and all other rights reserved by GoDaddy in this Agreement, GoDaddy expressly reserves the right in its sole discretion to:
ii. Deny, cancel, terminate, suspend, lock, or modify access to your Services for unsolicited, commercial e-mailing (i.e., spam, sending email to subscribers who have not "opted-in"); illegal access to other computers or networks (i.e., hacking); distribution of internet viruses or similar destructive activities; non-payment of fees; activities designed to defame, embarrass, harm, abuse, threaten, slander or harass third parties; activities prohibited by the laws of the United States and/or foreign territories in which you conduct business; activities designed to encourage unlawful behavior by others, such as hate crimes, terrorism and child pornography; activities that are tortious, vulgar, obscene, invasive of the privacy of a third party, racially, ethnically, or otherwise objectionable; activities designed to impersonate the identity of a third party; and activities designed to harm minors in any way, and other activities whether lawful or unlawful that GoDaddy determines, in its sole discretion, to be harmful to its other customers, operations, or reputation;
So basically they reserve the right to pull your domain for next to any reason.
Call it a slippery slope all you want, but there are plenty examples of exactly that happening. And it's regressive. And it happens in real life with real consequences. For all you Americans out there, the Patriot Act completely eroded your Fourth Amendment rights.
Yeah, whatever, I'll stick with... anyone but GoDaddy
I don't think the discussion is about the legality of the situation since, as you've pointed out, GoDaddy's ToS gives them legal cover for their actions. I was talking more about the morality of...
I don't think the discussion is about the legality of the situation since, as you've pointed out, GoDaddy's ToS gives them legal cover for their actions. I was talking more about the morality of the situation as that seemed to be the nature of the discussion - if GoDaddy has a moral obligation to host objectionable content, does a particular technical expert have a moral obligation to help them do so?
I don't even want to get into what Reddit does and doesn't do as my own opinion is that the company is massively hypocritical. For what it's worth, I'm a Canadian expat and live in the Caribbean, so I experience a certain degree of fallout (in a different way than US citizens) from their policies.
With all that said, I really haven't seen any way that these massive social networking sites can easily resolve this. You can limit what people can express on your site and set up something that isn't objectionable to most people, but you will silence people on the fringes of what is socially acceptable. On the other hand, you can allow absolutely anything, but a determined and organized fringe political group can completely dominate your site and harass or drown out anyone who disagrees.
Obviously GoDaddy made the right decision. Gab.io has a lot of dangerous and hateful content, and GoDaddy shouldn't be forced to associate with them. Despite my complete disapproval of gab.io,...
Obviously GoDaddy made the right decision. Gab.io has a lot of dangerous and hateful content, and GoDaddy shouldn't be forced to associate with them.
Despite my complete disapproval of gab.io, it's a little concerning to me that the reality is you need to have a 3rd party host willing to accept your content as a practical solution.
I know that freedom of speech isn't a concern for private operations but the infrastructure we all use for the Internet was bought by and belongs to the public by rights (not legally). Obviously legality still needs to be a factor but that becomes murky when you're hosting user generated content. No one holds Twitter to be liable for all the hate speech they don't remove even if they do make an effort to censor content like that.
I am aware the gab.io is a different case so I'm not really sure what to think about the implications.
Relevant xkcd
https://xkcd.com/1357/
In this instance this comic completely misses the point. Notice how it says "or get banned from an internet community...".
They got banned, they didn't like twitters policy, whatever it was: they made their own alternative because they weren't happy on twitter, and people rightfully repeatedly told them to fuck off. So they did.
But that still isn't enough.
Again, not related. A website can still exist without paypal and godaddy. Those services are entirely free to do what they please. Setup your own creditcard handling and your own hosting if you feel so inclined.
Your comic says "we don't want you on our platform" but what you are saying is "we don't want your platform to exist"
Maybe. Or maybe not because he is a crazy terrorist.
While I find the companies' decision reasonable (I'd probably do the same if they were my customers), selling things or services to someone is hardly supporting them. If this website was using paid private Github repos, does it mean that Github was supporting them? Or if they like to drink Coca Cola while working?
Banning a customer is a choice companies should be able to make in certain circumstances, but implying that not doing so means that they're supporting the customers is a problematic approach.
Gabs twitter is terrible it's just them whining about how tech companies are evil and how we need regulation to protect them from the free market and how everybody are fascists lol. Then they unironically claim in quotes "GET TO THE POLLS AND VOTE OR RISK LOSING THE BILL OF RIGHTS IN THE UNITED STATES TO LITERAL COMMUNISTS." Ah yes it's a well known fact that communists love the free market...
it's really is funny to watch the about-face that takes place with organizations that love the free market once they realize that the free market isn't a one way street and that the free market can decide to no longer support their venture. seems to happen without fail with every ultra-libertarian free speech website.
previous thread here
gab has gone down for an indeterminate period of time as of this morning, although as of now it appears to have a new hosting service secured. nonetheless, gab hasn't weathered the sudden uptick in media attention well. having already lost their CTO yesterday, gab has now been kicked off both medium and godaddy, and seems likely to be blacklisted from any other services they attempt to make use of. they've doubled down on their commitment to freedom as recently as two hours ago, but you can tell they're feeling the hurt just from this tweet, which reads:
better days might be ahead for the website yet, but to say the least it's not looking so great.
There's a place for Gab's userbase. It's called Stormfront. They should be using that instead of polluting the rest of the internet with their fascist bullshit.
Too energy-intensive. Let's just feed them to swine.
ICANN doesn't sell domains, they license registrars to do that. So you still need to find a registrar willing to let you register with them.
After that, you still need to host your content somewhere, for which you will need an IP address. You can either use a hosting provider (that's willing to host you) or you can try buying a static IP from your ISP and serve it from home (which is against most ISP's ToS).
ISPs will happily sell you a business connection regardless of zoning (because zoning doesn't matter for connection tier) or if you even have a business. ISPs will generally terminate your connection if you run a business on a home connection, though, and proactively incentivize getting a business line by offering static IPs, faster support, and better upload speeds, which are usually unavailable to home users.
I think Gab should just contact Stormfront's registrar, that's probably a good starting point.
That would be absolutely hilarious
I haven't heard of Gab until today, so I don't know what they're about and what goes on on their network, but honestly, seeing companies throw other companies under the bus like that really puts me off putting my trust in them.
Why would I use GoDaddy as a registrar or host when I can use another company that won't give me the boot as soon as they start disagreeing with me?
It's the exact opposite for me. I generally despise godaddy, but the fact they are taking a stand against a platform explicitly designed to host and allow the propagation of hate speech made me respect them a hell of a lot more.
Slippery slope arguments are considered logical fallacies for a reason. Unless your site similarly hosts abhorrent shit like calls for violent uprising, murder and genocide as gab did, you will be fine.
gab is a social media website which takes a hardline stance on the protection of free speech. as a consequence of that, the site has attracted an audience of primarily right-wingers, far-righters, and neo-nazis/white nationalists/white supremacists who have been disenfranchised by twitter and other services. to give you a comparison, it is to twitter what voat is to reddit.
since it's almost absolutist in its protection of free speech, a lot of the content of the website is openly racist, sexist, misogynistic, bigoted, and just generally hateful; that's not to say there aren't some decent users of the site of course, since i'm sure there are. but it's fairly unambiguous that the website has content that most companies have no desire to associate with or host, which is part of why you're seeing companies shut down their presence elsewhere. it's bad PR.
This underplays it a bit. It was designed for, intended for, and targeted at hardcore right wingers who were getting banned from Twitter. Anyone's who's spent time on twitter realizes you can get away with pretty extreme political views as long as you aren't spouting racial slurs. These are the people who Gab is made for.
"Free Speech" has become the lazy rallying cry for outright white supremacists on the internet, since open racial slurs and child porn are damn near the only things that'll get you banned from the mainstream social media sites.
oh no i'm well aware of who its practical target audience is at this point and the fact that it's realistically just the twitter equivalent of Voat, but that can be construed as an opinionated lens through which to analyze the site, and my intent was to be somewhat objective here instead of coming off as partisan.
Moreover, a quick WHOIS request will generally tell you which domain registrar a domain name is associated with, and a reverse IP lookup can often tell you which hosting provider or ISP an IP address belongs to. This information is very typically publicly available, so it's generally a relatively simple task to associate a website with the registrar and host.
This is a large part of why these companies would want to take action. It would be one thing if this information wasn't publicly available as then the information wouldn't be associated with their brand, but it is and has a direct impact on their image and potentially their bottom line.
A free market solution means free market forces, and public image is one of those forces.
I don't think they threw them under the bus at all. Two businesses entered into a vendor agreement--i.e. the Terms of Service--and the customer violated part of the agreement.
As long as you aren't a white supremacist inciting violence on the site that they're hosting for you, then you really have nothing to worry about. That's quite a bit further than just "disagreeing" with someone.
Doesn’t seem like GoDaddy is asking too much of its customers.
Although I agree with you, I think GoDaddy pulling their domain registration raises a very interesting dilemma. Is it their right? If that is in the TOS, then yes. But it makes it harder to argue "don't like getting banned? Just make your own platform" when it may be difficult to find a registrar. (You can just use your IP address, but you can't use HTTPS, and without a domain, your website is unlikely to ever be able to gain any traction, effectively nullifying your message.)
Given that Stormfront and Alex Jones haven't had problems with their domain registrars, I'm sure Gab can find a registrar (maybe CloudFlare, they're also pretty absolutist about free speech), but it certainly makes the Internet seem a lot less free and open. I am not against what GoDaddy did, but it certainly weakens the "just make your own platform" argument (which I have used plenty of times before) when you can't just make your own registrar in the same way most people can't afford to make their own ISP (at least here in America).
It is definitely their right to dissociate with Gab and end the business relationship assuming the agreement permits. Telling users when they're banned to "just make your own platform" works if you're not talking to white supremacists who want to incite violence online. Hate fat people? You too have a place online as long as there are no (major/publicized) calls to violence.
I definitely don't think GoDaddy and domain registrars in general should be the arbiters of online content, but the market is naturally making it hard for certain speech to exist on the internet because it's... well, shitty and indefensible.
Also aside from the more well known absolutist registrars you mentioned, I'm sure there are hundreds of similar (but obscure) options all around the world for Nazis to use. Just as trackers have domain-hopped over the years.
True. Looking at reddit, people are linking lots of registrars and hosting providers that explicitly state if it's not illegal, they will host it, no questions asked. It's just harder to find these companies, presumably because they're not high-margin operations like GoDaddy.
I'm sure Gab will survive. I guess the question is if they'll police themselves any better. Fighting words are not protected speech.
simple answer: no. you need only look at their twitter. they've learned nothing and see absolutism as more important than trying to keep their users from becoming the american version of ISIS.
On the flip side, let's say you're Jewish administrator working at GoDaddy. Are you obligated to keep coming in to work to help them host this content? What if you're the only admin left and without you, the site goes dark? I mean as long as we're doing slippery slope arguments, we may as well consider all of the stakeholders.
If an employee doesn't want to "keep coming in to work", of course they're allowed to quit, if that's what you're asking?
If a sysadmin has a personal objection with a client they provision service for, they'd forward it to legal/HR/the CEO/their boss... if a sysadmin tried to terminate service between the company and a client themselves, I would expect GoDaddy would fire them, or at the very least reprimand them.
Regardless, everything would be automated so no one working at GoDaddy even needs to know about so and so client registering whatever domain...
Anyway, here's what GoDaddy's ToS say:
So basically they reserve the right to pull your domain for next to any reason.
I don't think anyone complained when Reddit removed the "jailbait" subs. But Reddit recently banned a wealth of perfectly legal discussion subs (eg, /r/DNMVendorReviews, /r/ResearchVendors) that help people safely buy and consume drugs, which is no different than a bunch of government-run services [1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FRANK_(drugs\) [2]:https://www.amsterdam.info/drugs/.
Call it a slippery slope all you want, but there are plenty examples of exactly that happening. And it's regressive. And it happens in real life with real consequences. For all you Americans out there, the Patriot Act completely eroded your Fourth Amendment rights.
Yeah, whatever, I'll stick with... anyone but GoDaddy
I don't think the discussion is about the legality of the situation since, as you've pointed out, GoDaddy's ToS gives them legal cover for their actions. I was talking more about the morality of the situation as that seemed to be the nature of the discussion - if GoDaddy has a moral obligation to host objectionable content, does a particular technical expert have a moral obligation to help them do so?
I don't even want to get into what Reddit does and doesn't do as my own opinion is that the company is massively hypocritical. For what it's worth, I'm a Canadian expat and live in the Caribbean, so I experience a certain degree of fallout (in a different way than US citizens) from their policies.
With all that said, I really haven't seen any way that these massive social networking sites can easily resolve this. You can limit what people can express on your site and set up something that isn't objectionable to most people, but you will silence people on the fringes of what is socially acceptable. On the other hand, you can allow absolutely anything, but a determined and organized fringe political group can completely dominate your site and harass or drown out anyone who disagrees.
Obviously GoDaddy made the right decision. Gab.io has a lot of dangerous and hateful content, and GoDaddy shouldn't be forced to associate with them.
Despite my complete disapproval of gab.io, it's a little concerning to me that the reality is you need to have a 3rd party host willing to accept your content as a practical solution.
I know that freedom of speech isn't a concern for private operations but the infrastructure we all use for the Internet was bought by and belongs to the public by rights (not legally). Obviously legality still needs to be a factor but that becomes murky when you're hosting user generated content. No one holds Twitter to be liable for all the hate speech they don't remove even if they do make an effort to censor content like that.
I am aware the gab.io is a different case so I'm not really sure what to think about the implications.