29 Aug '17 19:37>
Originally posted by @finneganThat's interesting, my only source of "information" regarding this subject is this thread. The OP read as if this were a government action, however, from your post it appears to be a business ethics decision (on a charitable interpretation) and not driven by any government initiative.
It was a decision made by the owner of the site, after tolerating them for a long time. I have read that he even expressed regret and said he was in a bad mood at the time.
However, this is a privately owned site. Why do owner have a duty to host such material if it conflicts with their values so severely?
Among other things, they are bad for business - driving away advertising revenue. Now that can't be good!
On a side note, advertisers might not mind a hosting service with fascist connections, in their quest for sales niche markets are desirable - so if the hosting service is associated with white supremacy they'll just target that audience - presumably with ads for survival gear, guns, and sunscreen.