Posted on 10/29/2018 4:16:40 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
LifeSite, a Christian pro-life news outlet, was allegedly blacklisted by its web host and given just 12 hours to find another host the website, or risk being offline. “LifeSite just received an email at 8:30 p.m. EST from our web-hosting company alerting us that they will be taking our website down within 12 hours, if not sooner,” claimed LifeSite in a statement, Saturday. “We received absolutely no forewarning whatsoever about this decision.”
“Our web developer is scrambling right now to set up a possibly-needed temporary solution to keep the website live. However, we’re going to have to go through the ordeal and expense of moving server companies,” the news outlet continued. “We also intend to fight these attacks, which will carry significant legal costs.”
In an update made following the original statement, LifeSite added, “Our web developer was up all night implementing temporary measures to keep our site online even if our current web-hosting company followed through on its threat to shut down our services. We are extremely grateful for his hard work on a Saturday night. However, this is only a temporary solution. We are currently looking for a web-hosting company that will not cave to threats of this kind.”
On its website, LifeSite describes itself as a “non-profit Internet service dedicated to issues of culture, life, and family,” launched by the pro-life Campaign Life Coalition in 1997, which “emphasizes the social worth of traditional Judeo-Christian principles but is also respectful of all authentic religions and cultures that esteem life, family and universal norms of morality.”
LifeSite was not the only website blacklisted by its web host this week, with free speech social network Gab losing its web host Joyent late on Saturday and being given until just Monday morning to migrate to another host.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
But, but we can just invent our new internet...quick everyone. Thank goodness we still have our first amendment though!
I am an internet dummy. Can someone kindly explain to me:
1. Can they get a new web host?
2. If they are all aligned against them, can a conservative group become a web host to stop this threat?
Who is the webhosting company?
1. They can find a new host, but it will usually take some time to set up the new hosting area, and restore or migrate existing data from the old site to the new one. There are some administrative changes, like repointing certain address records so people can be properly directed to the new location, and making sure firewalls and security issues are addressed. If there are web site acceleration layers in between, which help manage traffic, they may need to adjust to the new location.
Basically, unless the site maintained a hot or rapid failover secondary node, it may take some time to copy the data and test the configuration changes before it comes back online.
2. I’ve thought about this for some time. There’s certainly room out there for a conservative group to create a web host company for fellow conservative sites but it’s not as easy as it was in the early days of the web where you just pop a few pages up and advertise the location. With modern threats care would have to be taken to design a service that could withstand the cyber attacks which will inevitably come and be able to handle the traffic.
This situation is likely a breach of contract.
I just am not sure political affiliation is legally/Constitutionally protected.
It should be and I do hope these organizations that are clearly being discriminated will sue sue sue!
We have to organize and start fighting back because this is really starting to look like hamburger Hill, Vietnam.
ping for later
Time for some sort of class action lawsuit or new federal legislation, regarding the gatekeepers of the digital domain.
This has become a full scale censorship assault against all those who dare exercise their right of free speech from a conservative perspective.
I did not aggressively pursue an opportunity prior to that which was much better. I’ve regretted that ever since. It may have made all the difference in the world to me.
Yes, very dangerous. An eye-opener I wish I had not experienced in many ways. There were good days. But there were days I might have been better off in a secular company. This was right before Manchurian Candidate Barack Hussein Obama.
“Waiting for Boogieman to argue that private businesses can do whatever they want and that we have to accept it.”
Exactly. In two days these ‘Private Businesses’ have destroyed ‘Gab’ and ‘LifeSite’.
Screw that, let's go on offense.
I’ve seen a documentary (propaganda) discussing Breitbart that used “user comments” to say the site was neo-Nazi / Alt-right.
So leftists can post anonymously to derail a conversation or create false impressions and then use their own posts to call for a boycott.
Media Matters has several thousand people hired to visit boards and do whatever the propaganda goal is for that day.
I am as ready as I will ever be.
they should boldly list who the web host is so others will know to avoid that web host too.
Thank you. It is a relief to me to hear there is a solution even if it may take time/money.
The tsarina wanna be tyrant in chief refuses to just shut the hell up. He's a menace. Sometimes I wonder what it would be like if he came to the light...not often but I do wonder if life would be a little better in America or if he'd be slammed like Kanye West.
Plenty of those. You can find them in the Netherlands among other places. But trust me, you don't want to be hosted there.
Regulation will depend on the type of utility. TLD like GoDaddy? No regulation. Plenty of TLD competition, and your name is not lumped in with some Nazi names. Hosting sites? Probably not worth regulating but I am open to suggestions to critique. Social media? Bad idea. That would simply cememt the monopolies of Twitter, Facebook, etc. Unless you have a way to regulate them to force them out of business. But keep in mind the regulators are not going to be you, they are going to be die-hard libs working inside Fedzilla.
Yeah, what is "the host that shall be mentioned"?
Why won't they tell us?
This article says Joyent was Gab's host, but didn't say it was Lifesite's. The gizmodo article, however, does name them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.