Hosting Advice for Consumer Advocacy Websites? 46
rcthompson asks: "I host a web site with information about fraudulent career marketing companies, but over the past year it has been repeatedly deleted by a series of hosting companies after they received a threatening letter from the lawyer for one of the companies listed on the web site. Are there any hosting companies out there who are involved or interested in consumer advocacy and will not delete a web site just because they receive a threatening letter? Is it better to use overseas hosting companies? Is there any way to completely hide who your hosting company is so that the bad guys cannot figure out who to send the threatening letter to? One could host the web site on one's own server and use one's own nameservers, but the IP address will reveal your ISP who could possibly shut down your site. Any advice is appreciated. Thanks."
One suggestion (Score:2, Informative)
spam? (Score:4, Informative)
This site has been banned for SPAM violations. We apologize for the idiot webmaster who could not control him/her self.
Perhaps there are other reasons your site keeps getting taken down?
On the chance that you're not a spammer and that's just their standard removal notice, I'd recommend contacting your potential hosters before signing up and inform them of the situation. They'll be much more willing to stand by you if they know what's going on in advance.
addendum (Score:3, Informative)
Find some other sites that have similar content (and appear to be surviving legal threats) and ask/find out their ISP. Easy, eh?
p.s. popup warning for IE users on the link in the article...
Re:spam? (Score:1)
Re:spam? (Score:2)
Re:spam? (Score:1)
Oh wait, did he post this story in order to increase the publicity so that he could ask more damage recovery in the lawsuit? Damn..
Read the link stupid. (Score:2)
Don't jump to conclusions stupid (Score:2)
Thus, the submitter appears to have gotten kicked off his old host for spamming - a slight problem with his contention that he's being persecuted for exposing bad business practices.
Now do you get it?
Re:Don't jump to conclusions stupid (Score:2)
The submitter got kicked off of his old host for hosting the consumer advocacy site. One of the companies that is covered at his site (Wellington Burke) has been trying to eradicate the site and fires off threatening letters to every ISP that the site is hosted on.
There is no spamming going on here.
Re:Don't jump to conclusions stupid (Score:2)
I am reading the content - the content of what remains on the old host, which says he's a spammer.
He says he got kicked off for being a consumer advocate, but we have no way to truly verify that, so I'll trust his old ISP as much as I trust him.
Re:Don't jump to conclusions stupid (Score:2)
Sealand-based HavenCo (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.sealandgov.com [sealandgov.com]
Re:Sealand-based HavenCo (Score:1)
Btw, should I be worried that an offical Government website use
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Sealand-based HavenCo (Score:2, Insightful)
Sealand isn't a real country, so no, they don't have their own ccTLD.
Neither are a number of places with their own ccTLD. Off the top of my head, the Cocos Islands (.cc), Christmas Island (the infamous .cx), and the Heard and McDonald Islands (.hm) (all part of Australia) come to mind... have a look here [norid.no] for more info.
So why shouldn't Sealand get their own ccTLD?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Sealand-based HavenCo (Score:2)
Since Roy of Sealand was still an English citizen, he was thus accused of extensive crimes in Britain and was summoned to an English court. The result of this lawsuit in Chelmsford, Essex was a spectacular success for Sealand's claim to sovereignty. In its judgment of 25 November 1968, the court declared that it was not competent in Roy of Sealand's case as it could not exert any jurisdiction outside of British national territory. This is the first de facto recognition of the Principality of Sealand. English law had ruled that Sealand was not part of the United Kingdom, nor did any other nation claim it, hence Prince Roy's declaration of a new Sovereign State was de facto upheld.
Seems the courts may think so.
Tim
Re:Sealand-based HavenCo (Score:2)
EFF (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:consumer advocate == terrorist (Score:1)
Re:consumer advocate == terrorist (Score:1)
Community Colo (Score:5, Informative)
Community Colo [communitycolo.net] in the bay area. They host non-profit servers for free, or by reasonable donation. I think there was a
-Sean
Overseas? (Score:2)
Judging by your site you have gone overseas. http://membres.lycos.fr/execcareer/ [lycos.fr] All of the companies on your site are based in the US, and the site is hosted by lycos in France (read: under French law).
It's not a permanent solution but it doesn't look like your site requires a lot of maintenance so I'm not sure there's a problem with it.
off the top of my head... (Score:2)
First of all! (Score:2)
then sue the company getting you shutdown...
Second of all Host on a Cable modem or DSL line...on your own server.
Re:First of all! (Score:5, Informative)
No, not it's not. As posted in many businesses, "we reserve the right to refuse to serve any customer". A company cannot violate your free speech rights. Your free speech rights can only be violated by the government, if they choose to use a law that abridges such rights. A company deciding they don't want you as a customer is not a violation of rights.
It's stupid arguments like this that water down legitimate first-ammendment violations...
Re:First of all! (Score:2)
Re:First of all! (Score:2)
Only if the government is one of the third parties that complains. The government had zero, zilch, zip, nada, dum-diddly-squat to do with this. The third parties that complained are all private business ventures. Why is that so hard to understand?
Re:First of all! (Score:1)
Fidelity Hosting (Score:4, Informative)
Do it yourself. (Score:1)
distribution like e-Smith [e-smith.org] (now SME
Server), and can be done on a broadband connection (depending on your
TOS) without a static IP if you use an outfit like No-ip [no-ip.com]. You could also pony up
the money for a business-class line and have even less concerns with
having your service cut off. It's more expensive (I pay
$250/month for 1Mb/s SDSL, but the benefits are certainly there.
Really -- be your own webmaster.
Re:Do it yourself. (Score:2)
Also, hosting it yourself doesn't leave you well prepared for the "slashdot" effect of what can happen when their is media (online or offline) coverage.
That said -- I still host myself because:
1. I can
2. It is cheap
3. My ISP has more balls than most hosting providers
Thanks for your comments (Score:1)
Online Policy Group (Score:2)
Blurbage:
Unfortunately... (Score:2)
Tobinhosting.com (Score:2)
I've had similar experiences with my site (Score:2)
I speak from personal experience when I tell you that these guys are using every trick up their sleeves to try and silence consumer advocates. Wellington Burke has filed suit against me and recently contacted my ISP trying to get my service disconnected (I host my own site). Fortunately, my ISP (DSLextreme.com [dslextreme.com]) after reviewing the contents of my site told them that nothing there violated their TOS and told them to go to hell.
It's amazing that your site can be featured in national news organization's reports (i.e. CBS national news, NY Times, Forbes, Wall Street Journal, etc), but that so many of these ISPs will shut you down in a second as soon as they receive a threatening letter.
Thanks for everyone's help (Score:1)