The SPLC determined that the most famous of them were “promoting hate”, so PayPal pulled service, and it’s always the roulette on what is going to be pulled next. Each year the International Conference on Men’s Issues had to change venues at least once, and one year the venue pulled out less than a month before the conference.

Don’t say it doesn’t exist. And saying “All men are pigs” is apparently not a reason to pull support from the female equivalent. As much as “Women should be sentenced to smaller prison times than men” is apparently not a hindrance to staying head of the judges of UK’s Supreme Court.

So yeah, we need to avoid using cloud services.

Which is the "most famous of them"?

In this UK it's probably "mankind", hosted on a microsoft owned IP, I assume azure.

I googled "splc men's rights promoting hate", and it looks like A Voice For Men is what alexis_fr is referring to.

Never heard of it. Wikipedia says

> for profit

And

> Its editorial position is strongly antifeminist and frequently accuses feminists of being misandrist.

somewhat different to things like the white ribbon campaign that it tried to hijack. There's plenty of charities and organisations working to stop domestic abuse of men. This looks like something that would fit well with breitbart.

In the Wikipedia article, the prominent example being used was an write (Paul Elam?) saying that victim of domestic abuse should strike back. SPLC interpreted it in context of mens right to mean that the writer is inciting violence against women. Technically true.

I wonder if in any feminist writing there are feminist who argue that victims should fight back against their attackers. How should that be interpret? Todays news in Sweden we had the first court day of the person who initiated the Swedish metoo movement. She posted a message on social media about a coworker who she said raped her. The prosecutor filed charged against her, arguing defamation as it caused emotional and economical damage to the named person. Technically this is correct and the expected result of the law suit is actually a guilty verdict for the accuser. It also mean that technically anyone who encouraged similar behavior, in the context of feminist writing, is guilty of inciting violence against men.

Swedish defamation law is also a bit different from UK/US laws in that the truthfulness is not a saving criteria. Causing someone harm through trial by media is illegal with only a few exceptions when dealing with major public figures. In the view of the legal system, harm is harm, and it is rarely justified.