DN&P Registrar of choice for a website that may cause controversy?

[Haner]

I am interested in registering a domain name with controversial content. However, given the current climate of censorship and corporate influence, I am seeking a registrar that is unlikely to get to external pressures to revoke my domain. Could someone please recommend a reliable registrar for this purpose?

 

[Paychal]

The confusion among searchers regarding your site, as long as it doesn't involve copyright infringement, doesn't solely depend on the name itself. It is more influenced by factors such as the content, DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act), RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America), LegitScript issues, legality, and so on. Namebright, Huge Domains, and Drop Catch are companies that deal with a large number of domains, some of which may be controversial. I personally purchased a domain from them that belonged to a major corporate music company (acquired through a merger or acquisition) and held onto it for several years without facing a UDRP (Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy). Eventually, they allowed it to drop since it didn't sell. Overall, they are a good company that is responsive when contacted over the phone.

 

[Shmoenevo]

I am interested in registering a domain name with controversial content. However, given the current climate of censorship and corporate influence, I am seeking a registrar that is unlikely to get to external pressures to revoke my domain. Could someone please recommend a reliable registrar for this purpose?

Are you aware of any domain registrar that tends to create difficulties when it comes to registering controversial domains?

 

[SleekVulture]

Attempting to pressure someone into relinquishing a domain simply because it offends or upsets someone is not a valid approach. Even in cases involving trademarks, the situation can be complex and unique. For instance, a private person has maintained ownership of nissan.com for many years, despite potential conflicts with the automaker of the same name. Additionally, whitehouse.com has served as a pornographic website for an extended period. If you want to check the registrar for nissan.com, you can perform a WHOIS search and use that particular registrar. Alternatively, you could consider namesilo.com, which has a good track record without encountering issues, even in the face of DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) notices. It's important to note that you should avoid using namecheap and godaddy, as they have a reputation for quickly geting to legal demands.

 

[Haner]

Attempting to pressure someone into relinquishing a domain simply because it offends or upsets someone is not a valid approach. Even in cases involving trademarks, the situation can be complex and unique. For instance, a private person has maintained ownership of nissan.com for many years, despite potential conflicts with the automaker of the same name. Additionally, whitehouse.com has served as a pornographic website for an extended period. If you want to check the registrar for nissan.com, you can perform a WHOIS search and use that particular registrar. Alternatively, you could consider namesilo.com, which has a good track record without encountering issues, even in the face of DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) notices. It's important to note that you should avoid using namecheap and godaddy, as they have a reputation for quickly geting to legal demands.

Several people have experienced instances where their domains were blocked or seized due to government intervention or the influence of powerful entities simply because they didn't approve of the content. Presently, there are cases where the FBI is conducting raids on people' homes based on their political beliefs or if they were journalists investigating areas the government wanted to keep hidden. This demonstrates a tangible risk of certain types of domains and websites being confiscated, even if they were operating within the boundaries of the law.

I appreciate your gratitude for the advice. You are already aware of the need to avoid registrars like GoDaddy and Namecheap, as well as other major registrars. It would be wise to explore Namesilo as a potential option, as well as considering the registrars associated with the two domains I mentioned earlier.

 

[SummersBase]

While Epik.com was previously regarded as a secure and reliable option, there have been changes in leadership that might raise concerns. However, it could still be worthwhile to investigate and gather more information about the current state of Epik.com before making a decision.

 

[SleekVulture]

Several people have experienced instances where their domains were blocked or seized due to government intervention or the influence of powerful entities simply because they didn't approve of the content. Presently, there are cases where the FBI is conducting raids on people' homes based on their political beliefs or if they were journalists investigating areas the government wanted to keep hidden. This demonstrates a tangible risk of certain types of domains and websites being confiscated, even if they were operating within the boundaries of the law.

I appreciate your gratitude for the advice. You are already aware of the need to avoid registrars like GoDaddy and Namecheap, as well as other major registrars. It would be wise to explore Namesilo as a potential option, as well as considering the registrars associated with the two domains I mentioned earlier.

When it comes to controversial websites, several have faced domain seizures due to legal issues. Sites that violate federal laws, such as piracy or illegal activities, are often at risk of being shut down. Even if you register your domain with fake credentials or use alternative payment methods like Bitcoin or virtual credit cards (VCCs from vendors like those on MMO), authorities can still take action if you're engaging in illegal activities. No domain registrar is truly safe from government intervention in such cases, except possibly by hosting on the Tor network.

However, even major sites that were seized, like the ebook piracy site B-ok.cc, remain accessible on Tor, although their traffic drops significantly since most users don’t know how to use the Tor browser. On the flip side, there are controversial sites like WikiLeaks, Kiwi Farms, and Stormfront that, despite the content and backlash, have managed to stay online by continuing to pay their ICANN fees. While their actions and content spark controversy, their domains haven’t been seized.

 

[Haner]

Are you referring to the individual who has been in hiding for years, facing persecution by the U.S. government for actions that were fully within legal bounds?

In recent years, countless individuals have been raided or arrested by authorities, simply due to their political ideologies. It's not up to me to convince you—just step away from mainstream media and seek out some genuine sources for a clearer picture.

 

[Taistandb]

Managing controversial domains can be challenging but achievable with the right approach.

Epik, founded by Rob Monster, champions free speech while staying within legal boundaries. There's also Securednet.su, and Nicenic.net, a notable registrar that operates without following the Spamhaus Domain Block List. Additionally, Reg.ru, a Russian-based hosting provider and domain registrar, offers a more lenient environment for domain management.

 

[Paychal]

domains were blocked or seized due to government intervention or the influence of powerful entities

Looking for examples?

 

[Rockerwr]

I am interested in registering a domain name with controversial content. However, given the current climate of censorship and corporate influence, I am seeking a registrar that is unlikely to get to external pressures to revoke my domain. Could someone please recommend a reliable registrar for this purpose?

What do you mean by controversial? That term is too vague to provide a clear response.

Generally speaking, unless a domain is tied to highly illegal activities like child exploitation, terrorism, hate speech, counterfeiting, or impersonating major companies or public figures, most registrars won’t be too concerned.

Hosting, however, is a different issue. Depending on the content, you might need offshore, bulletproof, or specialized hosting services. But when it comes to domain registration, the subject matter usually doesn't make much difference.

 

[Paychal]

What do you mean by controversial? That term is too vague to provide a clear response.

Precisely. The content of a site is crucial. LegitScript, for example, can shut down websites related to pharmaceuticals, or those selling "natural" or synthetic drugs, without due process.

For politically charged content, take the case of Gab's domain. Their situation was extreme—GoDaddy gave them a 48-hour eviction notice, bowing to corporate activism. Epik stepped in to host them, despite the damage to their own reputation, even facing defamatory attacks against their owner on platforms like Wikipedia. GoDaddy, with its corporate-driven political correctness, isn’t the best choice for registration or hosting if you’re looking for neutrality.

 

[Rockerwr]

Precisely. The content of a site is crucial. LegitScript, for example, can shut down websites related to pharmaceuticals, or those selling "natural" or synthetic drugs, without due process.

For politically charged content, take the case of Gab's domain. Their situation was extreme—GoDaddy gave them a 48-hour eviction notice, bowing to corporate activism. Epik stepped in to host them, despite the damage to their own reputation, even facing defamatory attacks against their owner on platforms like Wikipedia. GoDaddy, with its corporate-driven political correctness, isn’t the best choice for registration or hosting if you’re looking for neutrality.

To be clear, Gab has been widely criticized as a platform that fosters harmful behavior, where users have engaged in hateful rhetoric against others based on characteristics like race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. Worse, it has been used to organize, promote, and glorify violence against people for simply existing as who they are.

This isn't a case of unjust censorship or "corporatist" overreach—Gab posed a genuine public threat. The platform, through its users' actions, has been linked to real-world violence and even deaths. The decision to ban Gab was based on the platform's role in enabling these dangerous behaviors, and it was entirely justified. If anyone's goal is to create a similar site that encourages this kind of toxicity and endangers lives, then they have no place on the internet.

I want to be crystal clear: I do not support or associate with any platform or ideology that promotes violence or hatred in any form.

 

[Haner]

To be clear, Gab has been widely criticized as a platform that fosters harmful behavior, where users have engaged in hateful rhetoric against others based on characteristics like race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. Worse, it has been used to organize, promote, and glorify violence against people for simply existing as who they are.

This isn't a case of unjust censorship or "corporatist" overreach—Gab posed a genuine public threat. The platform, through its users' actions, has been linked to real-world violence and even deaths. The decision to ban Gab was based on the platform's role in enabling these dangerous behaviors, and it was entirely justified. If anyone's goal is to create a similar site that encourages this kind of toxicity and endangers lives, then they have no place on the internet.

I want to be crystal clear: I do not support or associate with any platform or ideology that promotes violence or hatred in any form.

What you’re claiming is inaccurate. Gab is simply a platform that promotes free speech. If it's protected by the First Amendment, they allow it; if it's illegal, they don’t.

Just because you might’ve come across biased coverage from certain media outlets doesn’t make you an authority on the platform. Far more harmful activities take place on mainstream sites like Facebook than on Gab.

If you're uncomfortable with free speech, perhaps you'd feel more at home in a place like China, where control over expression is the norm. But, just to be clear, I wasn’t offering a political opinion—I was answering your question about domain registrars. So let’s stick to that, and leave the personal attacks aside.

 

[Haner]

Precisely. The content of a site is crucial. LegitScript, for example, can shut down websites related to pharmaceuticals, or those selling "natural" or synthetic drugs, without due process.

For politically charged content, take the case of Gab's domain. Their situation was extreme—GoDaddy gave them a 48-hour eviction notice, bowing to corporate activism. Epik stepped in to host them, despite the damage to their own reputation, even facing defamatory attacks against their owner on platforms like Wikipedia. GoDaddy, with its corporate-driven political correctness, isn’t the best choice for registration or hosting if you’re looking for neutrality.

I have political intentions for the domain, so I need to register it with a provider that won’t cave under pressure if authorities come knocking.

Thanks for the info about Gab's domain being registered with Epik. That’s useful to know.

 

[Rockerwr]

What you’re claiming is inaccurate. Gab is simply a platform that promotes free speech. If it's protected by the First Amendment, they allow it; if it's illegal, they don’t.

Just because you might’ve come across biased coverage from certain media outlets doesn’t make you an authority on the platform. Far more harmful activities take place on mainstream sites like Facebook than on Gab.

If you're uncomfortable with free speech, perhaps you'd feel more at home in a place like China, where control over expression is the norm. But, just to be clear, I wasn’t offering a political opinion—I was answering your question about domain registrars. So let’s stick to that, and leave the personal attacks aside.

Everything I mentioned in my previous statement is accurate and can be verified.

Here are four credible sources that support my points:

ADL Report on Gab and 8chan
Congressional Hearing Document
Southern Poverty Law Center Analysis
Wall Street Journal Article
What do you have to back your claims? Just personal attacks and unfounded opinions? Your response lacks any citations or evidence to support its validity, which only reinforces my point about the lack of seriousness in your arguments.