Comment by mattnewton
5 years ago
> The point is that Namecheap parades itself as a defender of the First Amendment, while simultaneously robbing people of a vehicle of self-expression that they have paid for.
I think this is conflating two issues that are altogether very different. In the first, Name cheap was pro section 230 protection, because without it they believed that they would have no choice but to censor people due to the potential for legal liabilities incurred without those protections. They were not advocating for the right of people to not be deplatformed due to their speech. And that isn't even what is happening here, namecheap is deciding to boycott Russia because of the actions of the Russian government, not the speech of the individual Russians. The first amendment in spirit is about protecting citizens from the state and absolutely does not mandate who you do business with and why. There are other laws for protected classes in the US but the whole issue of US law just seems absolutely disjointed in my mind.
> Of course the First Amendment is relevant to international boycotts. How else would Namecheap half-assingly justifying its premature pullout?
I don't follow at all, sorry. They make no reference to the first amendment, they simply believe it is not in their best interests to do business with Russian citizens at this time because of the actions of the Russian government. This kind of boycott strategy happens all the time.
As I've said before, this is about Namecheap's self-portrayed values. It defends its Section 230 protection on the premise of protecting its and others' rights to speak freely. Given today's circumstances, it seems that reasoning is false.
To quote Namecheap:
"As citizens ourselves, we embrace the joy of hearing all voices. The power to regulate or restrict speech or expression concentrated in the hands of only a few big tech companies is not how we want those decisions made for us."
And what has it done today? It's nakedly hypocritical that Namecheap engages in those same restrictions against its own customers. If they just said "We're a business for free speech when said speech is convenient to our interests. Take it or leave it", that wouldn't be so much of an issue.
> the actions of the Russian government, not the speech of the individual Russians
> they simply believe it is not in their best interests to do business with Russian citizens at this time because of the actions of the Russian government. This kind of boycott strategy happens all the time.
Then why dissociate on the basis of TLDs of which many Americans may be domain holders? Or why is it that individual Russians citizens are having their websites taken down for the actions of their government? Namecheap is not being selective or proportionate.
I think you really have to stretch the "we enjoy hearing all voices" line to get it to read "we should do business with a regime threatening the world with nuclear war."
I don't agree that closing up shop in a neighborhood after someone there threatens you with violence, is a free speech issue, even if the shop was selling posterboard and markers you could use for signs to exercise free speech.
> Then why dissociate on the basis of TLDs of which many Americans may be domain holders? Or why is it that individual Russians citizens are having their websites taken down for the actions of their government? Namecheap is not being selective or proportionate.
I agree this is fair criticism. I don't know enough about their business to know if there is a better way they could be selective.