What's going on with Epik and Rob Monster?

[MapleDots]

I'm catching the tail end of this, seems to be some kind of controversy...

https://domaingang.com/domain-news/rob-monster-off-twitter-after-christchurch-massacre-controversy/

Must be something odd to evoke this type of a response from one of our members.

 

[namemarket]

..... But it has to be seen for what it is – not celebrating the death of muslims but a widespread mistrust (or paranoia, if you like).....

What you said above sadly reminds me what I believe started more than anything else the intense racial hatred sometimes shown to Muslims and Islam. I was intensely watching TV the day of the 9-11 attacks and the cameraman showed mobs of Muslims dancing wildly in the street in places like Egypt, Palestine and Saudi Arabia laughing and celebrating 9-11 terror attack news. It's a video I often think of, unfortunately.

 

[Bernard Wright]

No kidding. Rob made a mistake. Epik is still a good company, though.

Rob made a mistake folks. I will declare that I have made mistakes as well, and I will undoubtedly make more, but I strive to be a better person and make as few mistakes as possible. I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that I'm not the only one here who can say that.

 

[Nametree]

One aspect of this scandal should be addressed: It's about a video.

Sure, we can play devil's advocate and find motives to excuse anyone's actions all day long.

But let's not pretend this is a harmless, unintentional act of ignorance from a kooky powerless dude.

If you still don't see the harm, let me spell it out:
- sharing the video without comment would be insensitive at best, but claiming it's a hoax is an act of violence toward friends or employees who may not wish to see this on your Twitter feed the day after a massacre;
- finding and preserving the manifesto on an uncensorable link and then sharing that with Gab proves more of an interest in preserving the legacy of a criminal/amplifying his message, than in finding truth;
- you're doing all of this without even acknowledging that REAL PEOPLE WERE MURDERED. Not celebrating the death of Muslims? Well, is looking away (or, directly AT it and choosing not to see it) not a little like pretending it didn't happen?

And maybe you think this is far-fetched, maybe not, but sharing the video and manifesto contributes to a non-zero chance that some other dude will be inspired to follow in the terrorist's steps.

But see, that's the thing - it's really not just about that video.

It might not have bubbled up now, to this degree had he not shared the video. But this wasn't a first instance of ignorance, a one time sharing of a "fringe viewpoint".

He has made troubling statements before. Why do you associate yourself, or go out of your way to defend people like Chris Cantwell?
People have to wonder - what's this crusade you're on?

 

[Fancy.domains]

One aspect of this scandal should be addressed: It's about a video.

I haven't seen the video. Because I believe it shows an actual massacre of innocent people, I'm not eager to watch it. Most of you probably feel the same way. Above all, spreading the video for the sake of dismissing what it shows – that seems grotesque and wrong. We recoil instinctively from that idea precisely because we believe it is real footage of people dying.

As a thought experiment, put yourselves in the shoes of someone who believes that the government or the media is fabricating video footage in order to brainwash the general public. If you are this person, then you watch a video believing from the outset that it isn't real – just a hoax with actors of computer generated images (CGI). That makes watching it an innocent fact-finding mission instead of an act of insensitive, cruel voyeurism.

I personally don't care that some people say the video looks fake. Why? Because, given my world view about government and the media, it seems utterly implausible that the video is anything but what it purports to be – a terrible murder scene.

But, again, put yourselves in the shoes of a conspiracy theorist. Believing the government and/or media are faking videos like this for cynical purposes, you watch a video that doesn't look at all like the gory scenes of violence fetishized by Hollywood. Most of us are lucky to have never witnessed a massacre in person. Yet society has portrayed numerous fictional massacres on TV screens and movie theaters. So people have expectations of what violence should look like. A skeptic who looks at real death through a helmet cam might not recognize it for what it is – particularly if their preconceptions are to dismiss the video as a government / media hoax.

To such a conspiracy theorist, it makes perfect sense to ask the general public to view a video of violence that isn't real. It may even seem like an important social service to show them the "truth" about the conspiracy. And it must be infuriating when people refuse to watch the "hoax" video, as those of us do who believe in advance that the video footage is real. To a conspiracy theorist, that unwillingness to watch the video seems like closed-mindedness, as though we have been brainwashed.

Does this excuse the conspiracy theorist from believing in a crazy conspiracy theory? No. Everybody is responsible for choosing reliable news sources and evaluating critically the information they ingest. But a conspiracy theorist who spreads a video like this should be judged with a certain leniency. The goal is not to celebrate murder, after all.

Rob Monster never said people didn't die in the New Zealand massacre. Actually, he told me he believes it happened. However, Rob believed the video footage was edited by someone to capitalize on a "narrative" that served their ends – whatever that means. To my knowledge, Rob has said nothing at all that excuses such a murder.

Yes, I'm aware how crazy this sounds. No, I don't view these conspiracy theories as harmless. Rob is responsible for believing this nonsense, and he should know better.

There is a context for this madness, though. American culture has had an anti-government bias ever since we kicked out the British. At one extreme, the Oklahoma City bomber believed that the country has no legitimate government at all. Conspiracy theories abound. JFK was assassinated by the CIA or whomever. 9/11 was an inside job by the government (so it goes).

There is a deep-seated mistrust of the government and – above all – of the "mainstream media". People on the right in the USA are conditioned to believe the news media lies to them daily. Fox News talks about caravans as invasions, busing illegal immigrants to voting booths, and so forth. From my perspective, it's an endless barrage of conspiracy theories from 1 propagandistic side of the media, trying to discredit any story in the rest of the media.

To varying degrees, something like 40% of the American public believes the media lies to them. And people on the left are prone to this cultural problem too. How many parents don't vaccinate their children, for example?

I'm not excusing any of this. But it has to be seen for what it is – not celebrating the death of muslims but a widespread mistrust (or paranoia, if you like) about the government and the mass media. It seems laughable or tragic to those of us who don't share those assumptions. But it's also worth remembering that the Iraq invasion was based on misinformation from the government and mass media. Some skepticism is warranted. Sometimes skepticism goes into overdrive, and we – as a society – end up with people who believe massacres are hoaxes.

This goes beyond my boss. He is not the only person who falls prey to such tales.

Next question might be:

Do people want to buy a product or service from a company with a CEO that are spreading ‘right-wing conspiracy theories’ on social media?

That’s individual.

Some will not care as their only concern is the service or product itself.
Some will support it, as they have a similar political agenda.
Some will not like it and hesitate to use it.
Some will boycott it.

We’re all individuals with different views, opinions, values and agendas. This thread clearly shows this. People should not only have the freedom of speech, but they also have a freedom of choice.

Everyone of us has said or written something that have resulted in more or less serious consequences. We might have got into a heated argument or a fight, being temporarily banned from Facebook, or even destroyed a relationship or get kicked out of a job. Words might be powerful and in the wrong place and time, the might even be devastating.

As adults, we’ll have to take full responsibility for our actions. And the more of a “public figure” you are, the more harsh will the response be.*

*) Except if you’re the president of the US, using Twitter at early hours. Then everything goes.

 

[bmugford]

I have only a little sympathy. Such a person is factually wrong. And they're insensitive to the victims and targeted community.

Rob was in a bubble, an echo chamber. And he was passionate about fighting censorship, come what may. When someone is surrounded by likeminded folks, it is easy to forget that other people will not share the group's views. A CEO of a mainstream company should never forget that their audience is diverse. That's why most CEOs speak publicly only in a way that is bland, neutral, inoffensive, and apolitical. Rob the private citizen forgot the implications of sharing a fringe viewpoint as CEO. And he is learning that lesson the hard way.

Fair enough, but why are you trying to do the cleanup here?
Why is Rob not here to defend himself or apologize if he made a mistake that offended so many people?

My guess is he doesn't really see it as a mistake.
Either that, or he is just not willing to face the heat directly.

No kidding. Rob made a mistake. Epik is still a good company, though.

Rob is Epik. Epik is Rob. He is still posting on Gab under the username Epik.
I don't really see a separation.

Brad

 

[Slanted]

If and when Rob decides to come back and defend himself directly as opposed to using spokespeople, this is where he needs to begin.

I'm not acting as Rob's spokesperson. If I were, then I wouldn't be so overtly critical of my boss. Rob is not "using" me. I'm independently speaking my mind. Rob isn't stopping me, but I know that some of what I've said makes him cringe – because it's not flattering.

Ultimately, I agree, Rob needs to come back and speak about this. But I have asked him not to for now. In addition to speaking independently, I am simultaneously working to reposition Epik in a way that more accurately reflects our primary value of neutrality – which was the original basis for accepting Gab.com. And I am trying to avoid a situation where people are using Rob as a punching bag. I explained my reasons for asking Rob not to comment in an earlier post within this thread.

This isn't an isolated incident, he knows what he's doing enough to know that calling mass murder a hoax will not be taken lightly. It's not an accident, it's a tactic. To what end?

The only end result of this mistake on Rob's part was to create a scandal with negative consequences for the Epik brand. It was just insensitive and clumsy. Hardly a tactic. True, it was not an isolated incident. Rob has been in the habit of sharing his political views as an individual and wasn't in the habit of suppressing those opinions to protect Epik's brand. In that sense, there has been a pattern because Rob was posting on his personal Twitter account as Rob Monster. Should he have known that CEOs are always judged in connection with their company's brands? Yes. Did he underestimate the furor this would cause? Yes. Should he have asked for a 2nd opinion? Yes. Was this a sinister tactic? No.

What I take issue with is when someone parades free speech as a veil to protect individuals and groups that have dangerous motives.

Free speech always protects people with dangerous opinions. Epik's position to allow domains to be registered and not to ban them merely because the opinions expressed on websites are wrong or offensive – that is a sincere reflection of the principle of free speech and not a "veil to protect ... dangerous" people.

Admittedly, there are some dangerous people in Gab, as there are on Facebook and Twitter. I personally hope that those dangerous people are allowed to express their poisonous views in mainstream forums where their acquaintances can call them out, challenge them, and report them to law enforcement agencies. The alternative is for the extremists to be de-platformed by mainstream sites. Once that happens, they won't stop expressing their views. Rather, they will become concentrated in forums full of likeminded extremists. In that environment, their extreme views will be exacerbated. Normal people will be radicalized. And as their rhetoric escalates, nobody will contradict them or report them. Sweeping the extremists into a corner doesn't make them go away. It radicalized them, since they believe they are being censored and persecuted and because they are no longer mixed with normal people who can show them that they are wrong.

saying "hey I have a Muslim friend/employee so I am obviously not racist" is phony at best.

Phony? The employees Rob has hired are quite real. Actions speak louder than words.

 

[Slanted]

What a hypocritical snowflake. Did someone's speech hurt his fee-fee's?

Rob never once complained about this in public. He didn't even mention it to me until 5 months later. The person condemning the behavior is me. Please recognize the difference.

Rob has a problem with people leafleting Rob's neighborhood, or saying what they like about his wife, his kids or him, but he's fine mocking the violent deaths of other people's loved ones by calling it a hoax.

No. Not "saying what they like about his wife". Rather, calling her office, speaking to her co-workers, calling her and them Nazis, and then hanging up.

Are you ok with that, John? There is absolutely no hypocrisy on my part here. I am opposed to this behavior by left-wing "activists". And I am opposed to Rob or anybody else calling the video of the NZ massacre a hoax.

I haven't excused Rob's behavior. But I have attempted to explain what causes someone who never did such things before to do them now.

John, you are too intelligent not to understand this.

 

[johnnie018]

Phony? The employees Rob has hired are quite real. Actions speak louder than words.

Phony is right. Racists commonly use these lines when accused of making racist comments, "I have hired 10 Mexicans", "my friend is Chinese", "one of my relatives is Muslim" therefore how can I be a racist? It is the racists call card when they argue this.

It is "words" because Rob goes on awful racist shows then says he is not a racist, or that someone who most people would regard as racist is just misunderstood.

Not many racists will ever admit they are racist, they don't think they are racist, they just don't like XYZ being in "their" country.

 

[Slanted]

When it is someone else's family being attacked, Rob is all for it

What are you talking about? You posted antisemitic content by other people – not Rob. And it's aimed at Braden Pollock, who sits on Epik's board of directors. Yet you imply Rob is in favor of these antisemitic attacks? Why on earth would you say that? I see no evidence whatsoever that Rob is in favor of antisemitic attacks on his own friend, colleague, and fellow board member.

Can't you distinguish between things Rob does and things done by people who are not Rob?

 

[johnnie018]

Slanted, is it worth defending this guy? Say you worked for Dicker or Sarid, would be be worth it to defend it?

 

[Slanted]

Social media should have a setting in your account where it sets all posts to a 24 hour delay. This way people who make chronic mistakes can think about their posts and review them the next day before posting. I bet you a lot of them would get deleted.

The world would be a better place. Everybody has bad ideas. Everybody needs a chance to be talked out of those bad ideas – whether by themselves or by others.

 

[equity78]

What are you talking about? You posted antisemitic content by other people – not Rob. And it's aimed at Braden Pollock, who sits on Epik's board of directors. Yet you imply Rob is in favor of these antisemitic attacks? Why on earth would you say that? I see no evidence whatsoever that Rob is in favor of antisemitic attacks on his own friend, colleague, and fellow board member.

Can't you distinguish between things Rob does and things done by people who are not Rob?

Yes I read that post by John 3 times I did not see where Rob was attacking Braden Pollock. I feel for Braden Pollock because he has been put in a bad position with Shane calling for him to leave Epik's board and some others supporting that.

Will Braden Pollock speak up for Rob like you have Joseph?

 

[Slanted]

Yes. Slave owners in the United States used to like Africans so much they bought them, but that doesn't really prove much either.

What nonsense! You're implying that all my muslim colleagues are enslaved by Rob agains their will. Or that they are too stupid to realize they should flee.

John, I work with them daily. And I object in the strongest terms to your insinuating that Rob has "bought" them or that they aren't working at Epik freely. What condescending nonsense.

It's against the law to refuse to employ persons on the basis of religion.

As if Rob were forced to hire them against his will. Again, what ignorant nonsense you are spouting. I know you're better than this, John. Rob wasn't compelled to hire muslims for 1/3 of his staff because of non-discrimination laws. None of them applied to work at Epik, in fact. Rob sought them all out specifically. In 1 case, I made the referral.

Why invent fictitious narratives, John, when I'm right here, knowing the facts, and ready to contradict you?

 

[Slanted]

people like Cantwell call out for murder loud and clear.

Yes, that Cantwell person did. Fortunately we can all see it, condemn it, and hold him responsible – not just morally but legally. Utterly, utterly, utterly despicable.

Here is 1 aspect of this situation that drives me nuts. I'm an atheist, and I don't believe that bigots like Cantwell can or should be saved. I want them condemned irrevocably.

Rob, however, is a very sincere christian who believes that evangelism is a duty, that everyone can be and deserves to be "saved" or rehabilitated. Rob looks at a person like Cantwell and sees an opportunity to bring someone to Jesus. Rob himself would describe many "Saul on the road to Damascus" moments, where someone has had a 180-degree change of heart. (For those of you who don't know the Bible like the back of your hand, the story goes that Saul once persecuted Jesus. But on the road to Damascus he had a vision that changed his life completely, whereafter he changed his name from Saul to Paul.) For christians like Rob, it is an absolute duty to help people who are wrong – as clearly Cantwell is – find the truth. In practice, this means that Rob – who is a tolerant conservative – breaks bread with people on the extreme right, simply because he has encountered them since allowing the transfer of Gab.com to Epik.

I think Rob is naïve here. And he's playing with fire because most people will misconstrue his willingness to talk to someone like Cantwell. I don't believe for half a second that a violent racist like Cantwell is going to repent and see the error of his ways. But I also know – because I was raised as a christian myself – that for Rob this kind of outreach is a moral imperative of the highest order. Rob can't do anything else but talk to someone as a brother, no matter how morally repugnant or mistaken they may be.

Does this mean Rob is a saint or an angel? No, not at all. Rob himself has some very erroneous beliefs – such as seeing this video as a hoax. Yet that doesn't change the fact that Rob is sincere about trying to change the beliefs even of neo-Nazis.

This is complicated, folks.

You can be a nice guy, a family man, committed to your religion and community, and still be hateful toward other groups, bigoted, and so forth.

Very true. But Rob is not hateful. I have worked alongside him daily for 2 years. And I have seen how he treats employees, customers, an colleagues who are muslim, Jewish, women, gay, any group you could name. In practice, Rob has only treated them with tolerance and kindness. Are Rob's opinions correct? No. But is he a "bigoted" or "hateful" person? No. Far from it.

Rob is not the victim here.

No, Rob is not the victim. And I don't wish to portray him as one. Rob offended most of his employees and muslims around the world (to the extent that they run across this scandal). He alienated members of the domain industry, caused customer to question their commitment to the company, and damaged Epik's reputation among the general public. All of this was completely unnecessary. In short, Rob screwed up and needs to reappraise some of his decisions and news sources. I hope he will. Also, Epik's position needs to be redefined more sharply as that of political neutrality.

Rob is not the victim. At the same time, much of the criticism of Rob and Epik has gone too far. Calling him a neo-Nazi, for example, or implying that he is a racist who celebrates the death of muslims or who applauds antisemitic slurs against members of Epik's board. That's all totally false.

 

[wwwweb]

Epik being such a small register has received a pretty big target of backlash based on their CEO's comments in the past few days.

Anytime you are a CEO, and put yourself out there, given how highly charged this news is, and how it has sent shockwaves around the World, people have 0 tolerance for it. Take a look at Egg Boy, I think his gofundme is nearing $100K, he has become an online hero, because he stood up, wheras the CEO of Epik has basically gone offline, and made himself a target for a lot of the anger people have for what happend in NZ. It looks like he was trying to kind of get some PR for their anonymous file sharing service, and kind of put himself in the crosshairs of the national media, who just took everything they could find about him online, and just lit him up.

In the context of things Alpnames has more registrations than EPIK, which is not even in the top 50 registers, which means it has less than a 0.20% market share.

I see one board member has quit, given 1/3 of the staff I believe SLANTED stated were Muslim, some of them may not really enjoy Epik really being front, in sharing content which the home country has deemed illegal in a place they consider sacred. Workplace culture being so important these days in hiring, and retaining talent, I can't see every Muslim employee being happy about this situation.

 

[Bernard Wright]

How is that any of our business?

 

[Slanted]

If you'd like to join us in helping the victims, please visit http://Give.Monster to donate. Thank you for your support.

Guys, don't you think it's a bit gross for a registry to be cashing in on this massacre and the scandal? In particular, to use the surname of Epik's CEO in that way? Surely not a coincidence. Of course, you're donating the money. But it is nonetheless a marketing ploy to gain positive exposure for .XYZ in the context of a massacre and a high-traffic NamePros thread.

You could have done this in a context that didn't piggyback on a really unfortunate scandal. And you could have done it in a way that didn't actively promote the new TLD you're selling or further link the name of Epik's CEO to the massacre.

Some people accused Epik of trying to profit off this massacre – which is nonsense, since it has only been a PR disaster that will cost Epik business. But it seems that the XYZ registry is genuinely attempting to profit off the incident, selling its new .XYZ under the guise of philanthropy and at the same time doing so with a personal insult to the CEO of Epik. I should remind you that we sign promo contracts with your registry regularly. Though you may not agree with Rob's decision – as I myself do not – it is surely inappropriate for a company try selling .MONSTER domains by linking that TLD to the surname of a CEO involved in a scandal that pertains to the death of dozens of innocent people.

I see that Epik isn't the only company making bad PR decisions in the context of a mass shooting. Please discontinue using a .MONSTER domain for this unseemly purpose. You can promote your cynical charity drive in some other NamePros thread – without trying to drive buzz here. Really gross, guys. Really gross.

 

[equity78]

Yes, that Cantwell person did. Fortunately we can all see it, condemn it, and hold him responsible – not just morally but legally. Utterly, utterly, utterly despicable.

Here is 1 aspect of this situation that drives me nuts. I'm an atheist, and I don't believe that bigots like Cantwell can or should be saved. I want them condemned irrevocably.

Rob, however, is a very sincere christian who believes that evangelism is a duty, that everyone can be and deserves to be "saved" or rehabilitated. Rob looks at a person like Cantwell and sees an opportunity to bring someone to Jesus. Rob himself would describe many "Saul on the road to Damascus" moments, where someone has had a 180-degree change of heart. (For those of you who don't know the Bible like the back of your hand, the story goes that Saul once persecuted Jesus. But on the road to Damascus he had a vision that changed his life completely, whereafter he changed his name from Saul to Paul.) For christians like Rob, it is an absolute duty to help people who are wrong – as clearly Cantwell is – find the truth. In practice, this means that Rob – who is a tolerant conservative – breaks bread with people on the extreme right, simply because he has encountered them since allowing the transfer of Gab.com to Epik.

I think Rob is naïve here. And he's playing with fire because most people will misconstrue his willingness to talk to someone like Cantwell. I don't believe for half a second that a violent racist like Cantwell is going to repent and see the error of his ways. But I also know – because I was raised as a christian myself – that for Rob this kind of outreach is a moral imperative of the highest order. Rob can't do anything else but talk to someone as a brother, no matter how morally repugnant or mistaken they may be.

Does this mean Rob is a saint or an angel? No, not at all. Rob himself has some very erroneous beliefs – such as seeing this video as a hoax. Yet that doesn't change the fact that Rob is sincere about trying to change the beliefs even of neo-Nazis.

This is complicated, folks.



Very true. But Rob is not hateful. I have worked alongside him daily for 2 years. And I have seen how he treats employees, customers, an colleagues who are muslim, Jewish, women, gay, any group you could name. In practice, Rob has only treated them with tolerance and kindness. Are Rob's opinions correct? No. But is he a "bigoted" or "hateful" person? No. Far from it.



No, Rob is not the victim. And I don't wish to portray him as one. Rob offended most of his employees and muslims around the world (to the extent that they run across this scandal). He alienated members of the domain industry, caused customer to question their commitment to the company, and damaged Epik's reputation among the general public. All of this was completely unnecessary. In short, Rob screwed up and needs to reappraise some of his decisions and news sources. I hope he will. Also, Epik's position needs to be redefined more sharply as that of political neutrality.

Rob is not the victim. At the same time, much of the criticism of Rob and Epik has gone too far. Calling him a neo-Nazi, for example, or implying that he is a racist who celebrates the death of muslims or who applauds antisemitic slurs against members of Epik's board. That's all totally false.

You are right it's complicated and I would say this, someone interested in those things should go off and do those things singularly, not be the head of any company that is dealing with employees and customers. The problem here from a business standpoint which is what I am addressing, this is Namepros not Public Policy Pros or Political Pros, NO one signing up to a domain registrar asked to be indoctrinated into the personal beliefs of the CEO. He is a man no better or greater than any other man or woman on the planet, why would his beliefs be held higher, or more pure, People did not know of, or sign up for anyone's morality, messiah complex or anything else.

And let's keep it real like 100% there are much more important things in the world than domain names, someone looking to preach and convert and educate, they should be out there doing work they believe in, stuff much more important than domain names, curing disease in impoverished lands, feeding the poor in their neighborhood, trying to save souls. IMO that does not belong at the forefront of a company. And in a large multinational the CEO is the face of the company in a small company they are all most people not on the inside ever know. That's my take.

 

[wwwweb]

Guys, don't you think it's a bit gross for a registry to be cashing in on this massacre and the scandal? In particular, to use the surname of Epik's CEO in that way? Surely not a coincidence. Of course, you're donating the money. But it is nonetheless a marketing ploy to gain positive exposure for .XYZ in the context of a massacre and a high-traffic NamePros thread.

You could have done this in a context that didn't piggyback on a really unfortunate scandal. And you could have done it in a way that didn't actively promote the new TLD you're selling or further link the name of Epik's CEO to the massacre.

Some people accused Epik of trying to profit off this massacre – which is nonsense, since it has only been a PR disaster that will cost Epik business. But it seems that the XYZ registry is genuinely attempting to profit off the incident, selling its new .XYZ under the guise of philanthropy and at the same time doing so with a personal insult to the CEO of Epik. I should remind you that we sign promo contracts with your registry regularly. Though you may not agree with Rob's decision – as I myself do not – it is surely inappropriate for a company try selling .MONSTER domains by linking that TLD to the surname of a CEO involved in a scandal that pertains to the death of dozens of innocent people.

I see that Epik isn't the only company making bad PR decisions in the context of a mass shooting. Please discontinue using a .MONSTER domain for this unseemly purpose. You can promote your cynical charity drive in some other NamePros thread – without trying to drive buzz here. Really gross, guys. Really gross.

It looks like they are using the feelings of hate, to raise money for the victims, kind of a swipe at your CEO, not really doing harm to anyone else in general, who other than a small domainer based community can put two, and two together. Maybe you should boycott all .xyz gtld's if you feel so strongly about the hate they are throwing your way.

Well, what do you know...rob.monster is available
$11,013.88
Renewal $13.88 for year

 

[equity78]

Epik being such a small register has received a pretty big target of backlash based on their CEO's comments in the past few days.

Anytime you are a CEO, and put yourself out there, given how highly charged this news is, and how it has sent shockwaves around the World, people have 0 tolerance for it. Take a look at Egg Boy, I think his gofundme is nearing $100K, he has become an online hero, because he stood up, wheras the CEO of Epik has basically gone offline, and made himself a target for a lot of the anger people have for what happend in NZ. It looks like he was trying to kind of get some PR for their anonymous file sharing service, and kind of put himself in the crosshairs of the national media, who just took everything they could find about him online, and just lit him up.

In the context of things Alpnames has more registrations than EPIK, which is not even in the top 50 registers, which means it has less than a 0.20% market share.

I see one board member has quit, given 1/3 of the staff I believe SLANTED stated were Muslim, some of them may not really enjoy Epik really being front, in sharing content which the home country has deemed illegal in a place they consider sacred. Workplace culture being so important these days in hiring, and retaining talent, I can't see every Muslim employee being happy about this situation.

Which board member quit?

 

[BRANDERX]

Hello,

Just a couple of hours ago, New Zealand marked 1 week since the horrific terror attack in Christchurch.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47662450

May they rest in peace, & may that country remain the peaceful country its always been.

 

[wwwweb]

Which board member quit?

I believe Tal Moore stepped down from the board of Epik after they took on Gab.com

 

[Bernard Wright]

As adults, we’ll have to take full responsibility for our actions. And the more of a “public figure” you are, the more harsh will the response be.*

Agreed, and I think plenty of information has now entered the public domain, whereby us all, the responsible adults we pride ourselves in being, can stop raking Rob and Slanted over the coals and proceed in the manner a responsible adult should. If you're not convinced at this point that Rob is not evil incarnate, you never will be.

Lots of kicking while they're down going on. I see Rob as a valued member of this community, and I would make the same statements on behalf of any other member here. Give it a break.

 

[Tia Wood]

Guys, don't you think it's a bit gross for a registry to be cashing in on this massacre and the scandal? In particular, to use the surname of Epik's CEO in that way?

I don't know. Seems like free speech to me?

 

[Bernard Wright]

Give it a break.