information Brent Oxley Loses Access to Create.com, Plus Millions of Dollars Worth of His Domains

[James Iles]

Brent Oxley, the founder of HostGator, has been accruing a portfolio of ultra-premium domain names since he sold his hosting company for close to $300 million in 2013.

With purchases such as Give.com for $500,000, Broker.com for $375,000, and Texas.com for $1,007,500, Oxley has spent millions of dollars over the past few years accumulating this collection. According to his website, the portfolio is worth more than $25 million.

Oxley has now, however, lost access to a proportion of his portfolio

Read the full report on my blog

 

[Lox]

The 1 month chart isn't stellar IMO
Show attachment 185151

The stock fell / shake after the Directors and Officers / Insider trades report

- Nasdaq Dec 2020
- Y Finance March 2021

 

[DOMAIN ILLUMINATI]

Once something is labeled a conspiracy theory, the likelihood that it is not just a theory has increased.

 

[DN Playbook]

Okay. I am really getting tired of this. This thread has spawned other threads.

Can someone explain to me like I am a 5 year old what the hell is going on.

GoDaddy has locked domains. Doesn't look good for them. Got that.

What is going on behind the scenes? What are the grievances of both @create.com and @barybadrinath?

@Rob Monster is jumping in on this scrap fight and enjoying every second.

Who can summarize what is going on here?

 

[The Rover]

Okay. I am really getting tired of this. This thread has spawned other threads.

Can someone explain to me like I am a 5 year old what the hell is going on.

GoDaddy has locked domains. Doesn't look good for them. Got that.

What is going on behind the scenes? What are the grievances of both @create.com and @barybadrinath?

@Rob Monster is jumping in on this scrap fight and enjoying every second.

Who can summarize what is going on here?

I can't speak for @Rob Monster, but I'd imagine that he's chiming in on this thread because he's someone who truly understands the devastating effects of cancel culture and corporate "woke" ideology. He's hosting sites that were canceled by GoDaddy, where according to many sources, and even the owners of the sites themselves, that they were given very ambiguous reasons why they were canceled.

To summarize this entire thread, it seems that there's essentially two trains of thought. The first train of thought is that GoDaddy has a bad overreaching policy regarding locking domains down without a court order, and they merely followed their own bad policy. The second train of thought, is that in addition to the above, there's a possibility that someone at Godaddy (or multiple people) simply don't agree with Brent's personal (albeit vocal) ideology, and they're acting no different than YouTube, Twitter or Facebook employees, using their "wokeness" as an opportunity to unleash a little social justice onto folks they despise. Do we know that's what happened in Brent's case? Nope. Is it possible, given GoDaddy's track record? IMO, one would have to be rather foolish and naive to think that it's not at least a possibility.

The problem with the second train of thought, is that these kinds of things are extremely hard to prove, so most people simply ignore the possibility altogether. I mean, in a hypothetical situation where ideology and bias did play a role in locking someone's domains down, I can't imagine GoDaddy ever admitting it. Where's the upside in admitting such a thing, right? And that's why discussions like this take place. Because deep down, most decent people understand that cancel culture is an insidious epidemic that is unhealthy for business and freedom of speech. Again, I'm wagering that if wasn't for GoDaddy's endless stream of divisive wokeness on social media and beyond, that most of us wouldn't even be concerned about this issue even being a remote possibility. Let's all just hope that this debacle is simply a result of poor and overreaching policy devoid of personal bias.

Arguably the oddest thing about this case (other than locking down domains without an order to do so), is also the communication (or lack thereof according to Brent) from GoDaddy, and simply just how long this whole case has been dragging on.

 

[rh2000]

Since Aman Bhutani was a member of the World Economic Forum, and sits on the Board of the New York Times, it is logical, that he has fully embraced the WEF Great Reset agenda. Look it up.

Wow. I didn't know that. Thanks for telling me. Glad I don't have any domains there. Good luck to the people that do.

 

[DN Playbook]

I can't speak for @Rob Monster, but I'd imagine that he's chiming in on this thread because he's someone who truly understands the devastating effects of cancel culture and corporate "woke" ideology. He's hosting sites that were canceled by GoDaddy, where according to many sources, and even the owners of the sites themselves, that they were given very ambiguous reasons why they were canceled.

To summarize this entire thread, it seems that there's essentially two trains of thought. The first train of thought is that GoDaddy has a bad overreaching policy regarding locking domains down without a court order, and they merely followed their own bad policy. The second train of thought, is that in addition to the above, there's a possibility that someone at Godaddy (or multiple people) simply don't agree with Brent's personal (albeit vocal) ideology, and they're acting no different than YouTube, Twitter or Facebook employees, using their "wokeness" as an opportunity to unleash a little social justice onto folks they despise. Do we know that's what happened in Brent's case? Nope. Is it possible, given GoDaddy's track record? IMO, one would have to be rather foolish and naive to think that it's not at least a possibility.

The problem with the second train of thought, is that these kinds of things are extremely hard to prove, so most people simply ignore the possibility altogether. I mean, in a hypothetical situation where ideology and bias did play a role in locking someone's domains down, I can't imagine GoDaddy ever admitting it. Where's the upside in admitting such a thing, right? And that's why discussions like this take place. Because deep down, most decent people understand that cancel culture is an insidious epidemic that is unhealthy for business and freedom of speech. Again, I'm wagering that if wasn't for GoDaddy's endless stream of wokeness on social media and beyond, that most of us wouldn't really be even concerned about this issue.

Arguably the oddest thing about this case (other than locking down domains without an order to do so), is also the communication (or lack thereof according to Brent) from GoDaddy, and simply just how long this whole case has been dragging on.

You forget. I am 5 years old. Can someone explain this to me?

 

[The Rover]

You forget. I am 5 years old. Can someone explain this to me?

What parts are you having trouble with?

 

[Samer]

You forget. I am 5 years old. Can someone explain this to me?

Go to FireAman.com
(Hat tip: @Grilled)
It re-directs to the peak of this thread;
Aman is the CEO of Godaddy; seemingly MIA.

Nice explanation(s) by Brent.
Paul Nicks is confusing me with his replies;
There is no translation for CEO-speak.
You talk like a Politician, Paul Nicks

You waited until now, to ask questions?
40+ Pages!

 

[DN Playbook]

What parts are you having trouble with?

Still, no one can clearly define the grievances of @create.com and @barybadrinath.

 

[The Rover]

Wow. I didn't know that. Thanks for telling me. Glad I don't have any domains there. Good luck to the people that do.

Let's put it this way. I highly doubt Aman's direction and vision for GoDaddy is to host as many pro second amendment gun domains as possible, even if aforementioned domains/sites contained absolutely no illegal content whatsoever. That's a problem when you're touting yourself as someone who believes in free speech.

 

[The Rover]

Still, no one can clearly define the grievances of @create.com and @barybadrinath.

@create.com wants his domains. @barybadrinath doesn't seem sane and he wants money despite not yet proving that he's obligated to additional money.

Godaddy should have no stake in this, and allow the law to work things out. IMO, they should have never locked down the domains without a court order. They're a domain registrar not a Judge.

 

[Lox]

You forget. I am 5 years old. Can someone explain this to me?

(sarcasm but maybe ... relevant)

 

[DN Playbook]

@create.com wants his domains. @barybadrinath doesn't seem sane and he wants money despite not yet proving that he's obligated to additional money.

This is the most bizarre situation I came across in this business. I get the feeling that we are missing a lot of pieces to this puzzle. A lot of things don't make sense. Why would GD lock the domains if this is the sum of it?

 

[The Rover]

This is the most bizarre situation I came across in this business. I get the feeling that we are missing a lot of pieces to this puzzle. A lot of things don't make sense. Why would GD lock the domains if this is the sum of it?

That's why many here do indeed think there is some funny business going on. Because none of it makes any sense, right? Perhaps something major is missing from Brent's story? Perhaps something major from Puneet? Either way, if I'm not mistaken (someone correct me if I'm wrong) GoDaddy is claiming that since there was a lawsuit filed against their company's Indian entity, that they felt compelled to lock down the domains as a means to "protect" both parties involved. It's interesting how the frequent answer for any corporate or government overreach is that any such actions are only there to protect you, isn't it?

However, clearly that makes zero sense given the other things that we do know about this case. Based on the info that we do have, I cannot see a justifiable reason to lock them down. Did someone at GoDaddy simply use this foreign filing as a convenient opportunity to "get back" at Brent? Or did they simply lock them down due to their own overreaching policy, but were then intentionally reluctant to resolve this issue with Brent because he's Brent? The second scenario is kinda my guess, but it's only a guess, obviously. However, I think if we're all being honest, we would all agree that much stranger things have happened in the insane, divisive climate that we're in.

 

[rh2000]

Let's put it this way. I highly doubt Aman's direction and vision for GoDaddy is to host as many pro second amendment gun domains as possible, even if aforementioned domains/sites contained absolutely no illegal content whatsoever. That's a problem when you're touting yourself as someone who believes in free speech.

We are living is some dangerous times when people can get their lives destroyed over political beliefs.

 

[rh2000]

A lot of things don't make sense.

Sums up 2020 and 2021.

 

[DN Playbook]

However, clearly that makes zero sense given the other things that we do know about this case. Based on the info that we do have, I cannot see a justifiable reason to lock them down. Did someone at GoDaddy simply use this foreign filing as a convenient opportunity to "get back" at Brent? Or did they simply lock them down due to their own overreaching policy, but were then intentionally reluctant to resolve this issue with Brent because he's Brent? The second scenario is kinda my guess, but it's only a guess, obviously. However, I think if we're all being honest, we would all agree that much stranger things have happened in the insane, divisive climate that we're in.

I cannot draw any conclusions at this point. All parties have gone dark. Any rhetoric so far is mud-slinging without any concrete facts. All parties should get their lawyers to create and make public official statements.

 

[The Rover]

I cannot draw any conclusions at this point. All parties have gone dark. Any rhetoric so far is mud-slinging without any concrete facts. All parties should get their lawyers to create and make public official statements.

Many people here are simply speculating on what GoDaddy may or may not have done. I think most of us, (myself included) have also said repeatedly, that we hope to find out that nothing egregious happened with the case involving @create.com. Like you, we're all just waiting to see what really took place here. Do I have some suspicions with this particular case, given GoDaddy's past actions? Absolutely, and others here have expressed that as well. But again, I'll be the first person to say that obviously I have no facts to support my suspicions. You know, I'd actually be happier than a pig in S*** if it turns out that GoDaddy did nothing wrong. I think we would all be relieved so let's hope more info comes out soon. That being said, I think people have every right to at least discuss the hypothetical possibilities of what may or may not have happened.

One thing that is indeed verifiable via social media, is the fact that GoDaddy (like countless other companies) is obsessed with divisive virtue signaling and promoting social justice. In my opinion, when you spend the amount of energy that GoDaddy spends promoting social justice, your customer service will eventually suffer. Also, like @Rob Monster had mentioned earlier, Gab.com, AR15.com and other sites have in fact been canceled by GoDaddy in recent times. So yeah, people are going to immediately speculate whether any ideological bias was involved with this particular case. Hopefully that's not what took place.

 

[DN Playbook]

Many people here are simply speculating on what GoDaddy may or may not have done. I think most of us, (myself included) have also said repeatedly, that we hope to find out that nothing egregious happened with the case involving @create.com. Like you, we're all just waiting to see what really took place here. Do I have some suspicions with this particular case, given GoDaddy's past actions? Absolutely, and others here have expressed that as well. But again, I'll be the first person to say that obviously I have no facts to support my suspicions. You know, I'd actually be happier than a pig in S*** if it turns out that GoDaddy did nothing wrong. I think we would all be relieved so let's hope more info comes out soon. That being said, I think people have every right to at least discuss the hypothetical possibilities of what may or may not have happened.

One thing that is indeed verifiable via social media, is the fact that GoDaddy (like countless other companies) is obsessed with divisive virtue signaling and promoting social justice. In my opinion, when you spend the amount of energy that GoDaddy spends promoting social justice, your customer service will eventually suffer. Also, like @Rob Monster had mentioned earlier, Gab.com, AR15.com and many other sites have in fact been canceled by GoDaddy in recent times. So yeah, people are going to immediately speculate whether any ideological bias was involved with this particular case. Hopefully that's not what took place.

I'm trying to keep an open mind. Yet with a good dose of critical thinking. So far a lot of comments have been made attacking GD's decision to lock the domains. If those allegations are justified so be it. However, the silence from all parties and lack of evidence is quite frankly frustrating. Something is being hidden from the public domain. Gab and AR15 are separate issues that we can debate. I don't see the relevance of those sites here.

 

[The Rover]

I'm trying to keep an open mind. Yet with a good dose of critical thinking. So far a lot of comments have been made attacking GD's decision to lock the domains. If that is justified so be it. However, the silence from the other 2 parties and lack of evidence is quite frankly frustrating. Something is being hidden from the public domain. Gab and AR15 are separate issues that we can debate. I don't see the relevance of these sites here.

Again, the relevance for bringing up sites like AR15.com goes back to whether anyone @ GoDaddy showed an ideological bias against Brent at some point during this entire issue, since Brent's political leanings are likely not in-line with GoDaddy's. Is this yet another case of "cancel culture" in our society? Who knows. However, the reason why this is relevant for discussion, is because Brent has always publicly and openly supported the second amendment and he has done so via videos etc. I can't say there are too many well known domainers in his league that openly share his ideology, and is there any wonder why? He's also been criticized and publicly attacked for other anti-pc issues over the years. Hell, if you scroll back far enough, he was even criticized on this very thread for supporting hunting animals. There's been ideological warfare going on in the US and beyond, for years, but it's been exceptionally terrible for the last couple of years. Again, hopefully that's not what took place here, but who knows.

 

[DN Playbook]

Again, the relevance regarding sites like AR15 for example, goes back to whether anyone @ GoDaddy is showing an ideological bias against Brent at some point during this entire issue, since Brent's political leanings are likely not in-line with GoDaddy's. Is this yet another case of "cancel culture" in our society? Who knows. However, the reason why this is relevant for discussion, is because Brent has always publicly and openly supported the second amendment and he has done so via videos etc. I can't say there are too many well known domainers in his league that openly share his ideology, and is there any wonder why? He's also been criticized and publicly attacked for other anti-pc issues over the years. Hell, if you scroll back far enough, he was even criticized on this very thread for supporting hunting animals. There's been ideological warfare going on in the US and beyond, for years, but it's been exceptionally terrible for the last couple of years. Again, hopefully that's not what took place here, but who knows.

I really don't see how any business would see any benefit in inserting their ideology in conducting business with any client. Especially if there is a significant public blow back that can have a detrimental effect on the overall brand. It just doesn't make sense. Help me out here if I am wrong.

 

[DN Playbook]

I really don't see how any business would see any benefit in inserting their ideology in conducting business with any client. Especially if there is a significant public blow back that can have a detrimental effect on the overall brand. It just doesn't make sense. Help me out here if I am wrong.

The point I made about blow back is that there are times where you have to make business decisions that may piss some people off but make more people happy. These are complicated times we are living in.

 

[DN Playbook]

Anyways, we are getting way off topic. I'm going to shut up now.

 

[MasterOfMyDomains]

Grow up. Except for tom. He is making sense. Rover, point made you despise godaddy they are 100% blame. Hot rod lambo with his stolen 3L in trunk of his fast car just looking to troll. this entire thread has gone way off topic. Oldtimer wants to hug trees and join forces, none of this is helping come to a logical conclusion and legal decision. Rob knows his stuff, but most these posts are only making things worse and more complicated. Mainstream media is having a good laugh at us right now.
And at Brett’s expense. agreed to above post

 

[Samer]

i like that we are still respectful discourse.

Respect to all parties.

Godaddy, where are u? 44 Pages not enough.