Dynadot

What's going on with Epik and Rob Monster?

Spaceship Spaceship
Watch

MapleDots

Account Closed (Requested)
Impact
13,169
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.

Picture0016.png
 
8
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
I remember when NPs was the place to discuss domains. Not sure when that changed. Kind of miss it.
Bob

one step up now
discussing registars
 
2
•••
I remember when NPs was the place to discuss domains. Not sure when that changed. Kind of miss it.
Bob

It is still, nobody is stopping you from hitting that New Thread button and starting a domaining topic or replying to other domain topics. I've seen people hop in threads like this, hoping to stop it, but all you're doing is constantly bumping it up with posts like that. This thread was dead until somebody bumped it up again.
 
Last edited:
1
•••
It is still, nobody is stopping you from hitting that New Thread button and starting a domaining topic or replying to other domain topics.
I know, I was just trying to bring a bit of levity and diversion. You are completely right, and there are of course interesting new discussions going on, such as the voting stage of the .com hand-reg contest, the big day in .ai sales, and many other topics. Anyway, sorry to interrupt this thread.
Bob
 
2
•••
2
•••
I remember when NPs was the place to discuss domains. Not sure when that changed. Kind of miss it.
Bob
You are correct.. that's where there are tens of thousands of discussion threads.

Oh, and domaining is a form of speech/expression, protected by the 1st amendment in the US, which RM helps defend.... which is the topic of THIS thread.

I know it's hard sometimes, but just stick with it. You'll get it. <----- that's a joke for those who can't see it
 
3
•••
0
•••
not for me

here is the long version
for fans of long versions


domaining is the art of registering or buying domains
for profit that arises from selling those domains
later on


that's what domaining is for me
no politics involved
no religion involved

unless capitalism is religion for you
-but there will be no resurrection-
 
Last edited:
1
•••
? It's literally on video. How they died, who did the shooting, the manifest explains why. The Eggert guy is yet another conspiracy nutter it looks like. His page is easily taken apart. I checked out the blue "socks" There are no socks, guy was wearing something blue underneath. From one angle it looks like he's wearing socks, the other angle you can see his feet. You can see them again when you go back. Conspiracy nutter site. Even the advertising -
Illuminati3: Satanic Possession: There is only one Conspiracy

Thought I'd chime in regarding the reliability of videos... Let me make clear that I'm not much of a conspiricy thinker. I also have no doubts, or no reason to have doubts, about the validity of the NZ shooting video. Never felt the urge to question it. I did do some research after this controversy regarding Rob started but without watching the entire video and actual killing of people as thats just... not my cup of tea.

Anyway, to the point... I get why people question whatever video gets posted on the web these days and I can image it adds to the paranoia of conspiracy thinkers. You just cannot trust anything you see anymore. The time where you could trust video recordings or live feeds has long been gone. I have been working with a company specialising in deep fakes for the past couple of months and the AI and tech behind it is just insane.

Now there are a lot of nutters out there who question everything. Most of the time it's obvious: they're just paranoid. Fact is, technology like this is actively being used as we speak and definitely forms a thread in the future as this tech will evolve even further.
 
Last edited:
2
•••
Thought I'd chime in regarding the reliability of videos... Let me make clear that I'm not much of a conspiricy thinker. I also have no doubts, or no reason to have doubts, about the validity of the NZ shooting video. Never felt the urge to question it. I did do some research after this controversy regarding Rob started but without watching the entire video and actual killing of people as thats just... not my cup of tea.

Anyway, to the point... I get why people question whatever video gets posted on the web these days and I can image it adds to the paranoia of conspiracy thinkers. You just cannot trust anything you see anymore. The time where you could trust video recordings or live feeds has been long gone. I have been working with a company specialising in deep fakes for the past couple of months and the AI and tech behind it is just insane.

Now there are a lot of nutters out there who question everything. Most of the time it's obvious: they're just paranoid. Fact is, technology like this is actively being used as we speak and definitely forms a thread in the future as this tech will evolve even further.

Do you see the obvious problem with what I bolded?

"I did do some research after this controversy regarding Rob started but without watching the entire video and actual killing of people"

"You just cannot trust anything you see anymore."

You did research? Which means you read somebody else's interpretation of the video, but you didn't watch it yourself? If I relied on that one nutter's page about the blue socks, I would be misinformed. Simply watching the video and you know his point about that is nonsense. Or the recoil nonsense, and the other nonsense all over that page.
 
Last edited:
1
•••
Thought I'd chime in regarding the reliability of videos... Let me make clear that I'm not much of a conspiricy thinker. I also have no doubts, or no reason to have doubts, about the validity of the NZ shooting video. Never felt the urge to question it. I did do some research after this controversy regarding Rob started but without watching the entire video and actual killing of people as thats just... not my cup of tea.

Anyway, to the point... I get why people question whatever video gets posted on the web these days and I can image it adds to the paranoia of conspiracy thinkers. You just cannot trust anything you see anymore. The time where you could trust video recordings or live feeds has long been gone. I have been working with a company specialising in deep fakes for the past couple of months and the AI and tech behind it is just insane.

Now there are a lot of nutters out there who question everything. Most of the time it's obvious: they're just paranoid. Fact is, technology like this is actively being used as we speak and definitely forms a thread in the future as this tech will evolve even further.



upload_2019-4-3_0-4-31.png


https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/12/15957844/ai-fake-video-audio-speech-obama
 

Attachments

  • upload_2019-4-3_0-3-28.png
    upload_2019-4-3_0-3-28.png
    422.7 KB · Views: 62
1
•••
Do you see the obvious problem with what I bolded?

"I did do some research after this controversy regarding Rob started but without watching the entire video and actual killing of people"

"You just cannot trust anything you see anymore."

You did research? Which means you read somebody else's interpretation of the video, but you didn't watch it yourself? If I relied on that one nutter's page about the blue socks, I would be misinformed. Simply watching the video and you know his point about that is nonsense. Or the recoil nonsense, and the other nonsense all over that page.

As for the 'research': I watched parts of the unedited video and read what people questioned about it. I concluded everything that might seem off could easily be explained and doesn't justify the questioning of the video. Obviously I checked different sources as that's what 'research' is about. Did I watch it entirely? No. IMO there was no reason to do so. To be honest, I would never even have bothered to check if it wasn for all the attention Epik got in the media. Like I said, I'm not much of a conspiracy thinker.

I see what you're getting at and you're right ofcourse. What I'm saying is that you should always check the reliability of your source. So we agree on that. Are you gonna believe a video on CNN (for instance) or the different version some obscure user posted on GAB? It seems obvious but a lot (or some at leas) of footage released by channels and governments generally to be concidered trustworthy gets tampered with. It's just not that simple anymore this day and age.
 
0
•••

Yeah it's interesting to read up on if you have some spare time. Like I said, I've been working with a company specialised in these sorts of things. I got a demo and obviously did some reading up to know what to look for but I couldn't spot it. I was doing a live video call with my significant other... except I wasn't. It's cool and scary at the same time :)
 
0
•••
A domain registrar's responsibility to censor the web (or not to do so) is a complex issue. I'm not going to dumb it down in a Tweet or a slogan or a haiku.

Nobody needs to read what I write nor agree with me. But people who aren't interested in reading a few pages on this topic aren't seriously thinking through the issues involved.

This is a valid conversation to have and an important one. I don't think that anyone that objects to @Rob Monster's posts is for censorship. But it would be better to have a separate thread just on this subject. Rather than conflate the issues. Otherwise it just gets lost in the noise.

BTW, @Tom K is now @TCK.
 
Last edited:
1
•••
When you can't do everything, doing nothing is not the only option.

Registrars already practice ad-hoc censorship as previous case cited shows. Only customers with fear of censorship and de-platforming would FLEE a registrar.

Cost need not be passed onto customer, unless registrar margin is tight (I think not). Not asking that operators take over role of police & courts but would prefer they don't just hold up their hands and say "Nothing to do with us".

I assume a registrar's Terms prohibits certain uses; if not why not & if yes then how monitored. I think the industry (i.e. all layers) could do better.
 
0
•••
When you can't do everything, doing nothing is not the only option.

The web needs neutrality. Just because registrars CAN pull the plug on domains, that doesn't mean registrars MUST or SHOULD do so (or threaten to do so) in as many cases as possible. Nor does it mean registrars have the role or responsibility to canvass the web looking for sites to take offline.

A registrar can't monitor all web content. Hypothetically, let's say the registrar monitors 0.1%. Which 0.1% will that be? A random sample would be inefficient because the majority of content is innocuous. So the registrar would selectively choose the 0.1% of content that it deems most likely to deserve censorship. Customers in that category would be subject to investigations, ultimata, or expulsion at a much higher rate than normal customers.

Fair? Only if you imagine that registrar employees are competent experts at determining the legality of web content. (They're not.) Only if you imagine that they have no biases. (They do.) Only if you imagine that a registrar can't be influenced by outside pressure. (They are.) Subjecting some deliberately chosen 0.1% of web content to a threat of de-platforming by a registrar actively looking for content to censor – that does not necessarily make the web more stable, secure, or fair.

Imagine that you are the registrar employee whose primary job is to find objectionable content and to take action to censor it. Suppose that, at the end of a year, you don't find very much content that needs to be censored. Do you tell your employer: "Good news, boss! I did my job and found practically nothing"? If so, you lose your job. No, you meet your quota. You find content to censor, whether it needs to be censored or not.

Cost need not be passed onto customer, unless registrar margin is tight (I think not).

Of course it's tight. Indeed, it's a perfect example of a low-margin business. Registrars compete to gain customers by reducing their prices until the margin is zero or near-zero.

Suppose a registrar hires 1 or more additional employees to monitor web content and censor whatever is objectionable. It is inevitable that such cost is passed along to the consumer with higher prices. Or else the registrar must divert manpower toward censorship, and their level of service declines. In response, customers leave.

The status quo uses crowd-sourcing. That's free because the general public monitors the web every day. No 1 registrar employee can replicate the amount of monitoring millions of citizens provide. Registrars receive complaints of abuse from the general public, and they investigate those. And when registrars are contacted by a UDRP panel or a law enforcement agency, the registrars collaborate in providing information. That's the way the system SHOULD work.

ICANN is neutral. And I have heard nobody at all demanding that Verisign, as the .COM registry, should become an active police force and subject all .COM domains to censorship based on Verisign's own criteria. Since ICANN is neutral / agnostic / not involved, and since the TLD registry is neutral / agnostic / not involved, why on earth should the domain registrar be any different?

ICANN sets policy for all gTLDs. Registries set policy for each particular TLD. Registrars can only set policies for their own customers. So of all 3 parties, the LEAST effective at censoring the web is the registrar. Why? Because if 1 registrar's policy threatens to pull the plug on a domain based on content, then the domain will usually just be transferred to a different registrar. Given that obvious shortcoming in a registrar's ability to censor the web, and the inconsistent policies among registrars large and small, why on earth would people expect the registrar (and not the registry or ICANN) to be the web's police force and engage in censorship of content?

As I've explained previously, the registrar actually has no relationship with content. The domain owner, publisher, editor, writers, moderators, forum members – they create and monitor the content. And the content is stored and supplied by a separate company: The web host. So it seems very peculiar that people have focused on the domain registrar as the entity responsible for policing online content. Why? Just because registrars have the capability to pull the plug on a site? That means they're responsible for content? Registrars only maintain whois records, enable DNS records to be edited, and facilitate domain transfer processes. That's it.

It's mind-boggling that domainers (who should know better) want to voluntarily entrust censorship of all online content in the 21st century to a hodgepodge of companies (domain registrars) that are literally not involved with the online content itself. For the purpose of deciding what you are allowed to say or see online, do you really want to designate registrar employees as censors? You know: The people who answer questions about authorization codes, expiration dates, and name servers. These individuals should be tasked with finding content that makes them uncomfortable? And they should decide whether to pull the plug on what they find?

To a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Active censorship invariably becomes over-censorship. History is full of cases studies. I was reading an interview recently with Mario Vargas Llosa about the Odría dictatorship in Peru and the pettiness or arbitrariness of its government censors, whose decisions often made little sense. How to appeal the decision of a government censor in a dictatorship? How to appeal the decision of a domain registrar to suspend / delete / confiscate a domain? It's not easy. Do we want to registrars doing more in this area? Really?

Once special interest groups see registrars willing to de-platform content – even actively looking for content to censor – they will apply pressure to the registrar in order to censor the content they object to. There are strong financial incentives to go along with what they want, since it saves time and avoids negative publicity. Already this happens. It would only escalate.

Only customers with fear of censorship and de-platforming would FLEE a registrar.

Yes, but more and more customers would have a justifiable fear of censorship, once registrars begin actively looking for controversial content to kill. They'd apply their own standards, which I might not agree with. And they'd do in a way that disproportionately targets some customers or some topics or some viewpoints and not others.

Having worked at a registrar and having been a customer at dozens of registrars for nearly a decade, I would never voluntarily give away my right to host content elsewhere or publish my own content on my own domain name. Ask yourself, if someone wants to censor something that you publish on your own domain, then wouldn't you want that person to show cause and follow due process? If it is just some registrar employee telling you that your website has been taken offline because they judged the content to be problematic, then wouldn't you be furious? Wouldn't you expect someone qualified like a court or a UDRP panel to be involved? Or should the registrar just act unilaterally to kill your site if they please?

Not asking that operators take over role of police & courts but would prefer they don't just hold up their hands and say "Nothing to do with us".

Most consumers register a domain at a company they can trust to be neutral and not to interfere unnecessarily.

A deliberate position of neutrality is NOT an abdication of responsibility. Registrars are, in fact, involved in enforcement activities. We cooperate with UDRP panels and law enforcement agencies all the time. I personally have spent more hours than I care to count supplying information for UDPR cases, subpoenas, and the like.

In some cases, we registrar employees police nefarious activity and shut it down ourselves (e.g. phishing, spam, malware). But there are matters where content needs to be assessed more thoroughly or authoritatively than can be done by a registrar employee. For example, if someone is accused of libel, the registrar doesn't pull the plug on the website without first obtaining a court order. We don't assess the legality of the insults in someone's article. Likewise, registrars shouldn't adjudicate trademark complaints or transfer domains without a UDRP decision. The same applies to the legality of posts by individual members inside the Gab forum or to pharmaceutical websites and many other cases. As a registrar, we await an official finding by a competent authority. Registrars are a bad choice for adjudicating complex disputes because their staff has no experience or authority.

This is an important point. A registrar that adopts a position of neutrality is still actively involved in policing web content. But we do so as a witness, not as a judge. Registrars provide information. During the investigation and once a decision is reached, registrars take appropriate action to put the domain in a safe condition that respects the rights of all concerned.

The web needs neutrality. ICANN, registries, and registrars are part of the web's neutral infrastructure. Society has appointed agencies that are qualified to police the web: police departments, prosecutors, judges. ICANN has done so by creating the UDRP, for example. We want the web as a whole to be a level playing field, I assume, where legal content can still be published without censorship. Right? I'm not sure that everyone agrees with that anymore, but it's what I personally favor. Assuming we want the web to be fair, then agencies who censor content need to be trusted. Such agencies need to be authoritative, based on regulations that everybody in the society has a chance to change. That's the case with ICANN policy and with local and national law. It's not true of individual registrar policies and never will be. Such policing agencies need to be authoritative, competent, and neutral. A registrar and a registry each have commercial conflicts of interest that can prejudice them in favor of a paying client or against an unpopular client. So they may not be as neutral as we'd like. Registrars and registries don't have the staff to be competent as a law enforcement agency. And nobody will believe that 1 registrar's policy is authoritative for the web as a whole.

When you can't do everything, doing nothing is not the only option.

Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD. Registrars can pull the plug on any domain, cutting it off from content or registrant access. Does that mere ability to pull the plug mean that registrars ought to police all web content?
 
Last edited:
2
•••
1.) You can go to the south pole.
2.) You can charter a plane that flies over Antarctica.
3.) Commercial planes are generally charted in that way for business reasons. It doesn't make sense to fly 15 hours with a 1/3 or 1/4 full airplane.

  • Adventure Network [1]. Offers flights several times a year for a chilly US$45,800 per person. Also offers guided treks by ski to the South Pole. Covering the full 1170km from coast to Pole involves an estimated 65 days of skiing, for about 7-9 hours a day, hauling a sled weighing 110-130 lbs (50-60 kg), and the price for the privilege is US$60,500. Alternatively, you can cheat and fly halfway there with the "Ski the Last Degree" package, in which case you'll ski for only about two weeks and pay a mere US$58,900.
  • "White Desert" [2]. Offer an 8-day programme to the South Pole by air in a DC3 Basler turbo-prop plane. They are the only operators to offer a luxury service with an stylish and comfortable camp, award winning chef and highly experienced polar explorers as guides. White Desert operators from Dronning Maud Land, priced at 64,000 EUROS.
  • Arctic Odysseys. [3]. Offers a 10-day excursion to Antarctica, including a day at the Pole.
  • Icetrek, [4]. Offers a week-long excursion by air with one day at the Pole (US$33,500), and 15- to 25-day expeditions cross-country skiing the last 1 or 2 degrees (starting at US$38,500).
  • PolarExplorers, [5]. Offers a two-week expedition skiing the last degree to the Pole. US$37,500.
  • Voyage Concepts, [6]. Offers a two-week excursion by air with one day at the Pole, and a 25-day expedition (including all travel time and stopovers) skiing the last degree to the Pole and flying back. Departs from London by way of Buenos Aires. $42,450 and up.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/26/sports/antarctica-race-colin-obrady.html

Brad

Hey Brad,

Thanks for that comprehensive list of authorized Antarctica tour operators. :)

I am actually familiar with it. I reached out about a trip to the "south pole". Unfortunately no luck so far. As far as I have been able to determine, the farthest you will actually get to see is the ice wall and an approved patch of snow beyond the 60th parallel south. There is actually no fly-over.

In case not aware, the 1959 Antarctic Treaty System actually greatly restricts travel beyond the ice wall. Some folks have discussed it, including this entertaining recap of what is required to travel beyond the 60th parallel south:


That video is backed up here.

On a related note, I invite you to look up the Gleason Map:

il_794xN.1341968447_9npu.jpg



Although Alex Gleason's book published in 1890 is almost impossible to find, I sourced a copy and put a backup on IPFS here. The opening quote is pretty a propos for this entire thread!

upload_2019-4-3_9-8-39.png

Shakespeare told us "All the world's a stage". It was performed at the Globe Theater by Sir Francis Bacon, a high initiate of the Rosicrucian Order, a Freemason and a contemporary of King James VI.

People have the option of going down those rabbit holes. Or not. To me, being curious about the world is more fun than keeping up with the Kardashians or contemplating a busted NCAA basketball bracket!

I believe that the Internet, powered by Free Speech, gives you all the pieces to the puzzle. The people who own domains can independently and lawfully publish what they like. How cool is that?
 
0
•••
It's mind-boggling that domainers (who should know better) want to voluntarily entrust censorship of all online content in the 21st century to a hodgepodge of companies (domain registrars) that are literally not involved with the online content itself.

Um, did domainers actually say that?

Moving from general hypothetical questions about how the internet and registrars might work, lets remember you have previously explained to us that Epik have repeatedly acted on their own ToS to deal with problematic sites:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/so...er-or-suspension.1107245/page-24#post-7170517

Where you were asked this:
Has Epik, not even once in their history, suspended or banned a customer for behavior that while it might be legal was morally reprehensible or legal but against their TOS?
To which you replied
Yes, often.
And you provided a lot of helpful detail for us to read on that subject in that post. I recommend that everyone reads it.
 
3
•••
1
•••
“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” Issac Asimov

Hey Brad,

Thanks for that comprehensive list of authorized Antarctica tour operators. :)

I am actually familiar with it. I reached out about a trip to the "south pole". Unfortunately no luck so far. As far as I have been able to determine, the farthest you will actually get to see is the ice wall and an approved patch of snow beyond the 60th parallel south. There is actually no fly-over.

In case not aware, the 1959 Antarctic Treaty System actually greatly restricts travel beyond the ice wall. Some folks have discussed it, including this entertaining recap of what is required to travel beyond the 60th parallel south:


That video is backed up here.

On a related note, I invite you to look up the Gleason Map:

il_794xN.1341968447_9npu.jpg



Although Alex Gleason's book published in 1890 is almost impossible to find, I sourced a copy and put a backup on IPFS here. The opening quote is pretty a propos for this entire thread!

Show attachment 114602
Shakespeare told us "All the world's a stage". It was performed at the Globe Theater by Sir Francis Bacon, a high initiate of the Rosicrucian Order, a Freemason and a contemporary of King James VI.

People have the option of going down those rabbit holes. Or not. To me, being curious about the world is more fun than keeping up with the Kardashians or contemplating a busted NCAA basketball bracket!

I believe that the Internet, powered by Free Speech, gives you all the pieces to the puzzle. The people who own domains can independently and lawfully publish what they like. How cool is that?


so I have watched that video
but did you bother to watch that video:


and please make a backup


same for this video:

 
0
•••
Hey Brad,

Thanks for that comprehensive list of authorized Antarctica tour operators. :)

I am actually familiar with it. I reached out about a trip to the "south pole". Unfortunately no luck so far. As far as I have been able to determine, the farthest you will actually get to see is the ice wall and an approved patch of snow beyond the 60th parallel south. There is actually no fly-over.

In case not aware, the 1959 Antarctic Treaty System actually greatly restricts travel beyond the ice wall. Some folks have discussed it, including this entertaining recap of what is required to travel beyond the 60th parallel south:


That video is backed up here.

On a related note, I invite you to look up the Gleason Map:

il_794xN.1341968447_9npu.jpg



Although Alex Gleason's book published in 1890 is almost impossible to find, I sourced a copy and put a backup on IPFS here. The opening quote is pretty a propos for this entire thread!

Show attachment 114602
Shakespeare told us "All the world's a stage". It was performed at the Globe Theater by Sir Francis Bacon, a high initiate of the Rosicrucian Order, a Freemason and a contemporary of King James VI.

People have the option of going down those rabbit holes. Or not. To me, being curious about the world is more fun than keeping up with the Kardashians or contemplating a busted NCAA basketball bracket!

I believe that the Internet, powered by Free Speech, gives you all the pieces to the puzzle. The people who own domains can independently and lawfully publish what they like. How cool is that?


so I guess you will not admit that you believe in the "flat earth" theory
I guess you will claim to think of that in order to train your brain
so I guess you are no "flat earther"

good so

Richard Evelyn Byrd
an american

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_E._Byrd

upload_2019-4-3_21-23-26.png



a second documentary by the US military
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Highjump

upload_2019-4-3_21-31-26.png







https://flightaware.com/live/flight/ARG1180

upload_2019-4-3_21-40-49.png





https://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/
upload_2019-4-3_21-44-8.png


Antarctica Sightseeing Flight

 
Last edited:
0
•••
The "ice wall". Lol

What is this Game of Thrones?

Brad
 
2
•••
The "ice wall".

upload_2019-4-3_12-42-20.png


upload_2019-4-3_12-42-50.png


Yes, you have been lied to all your life.

Some people figure out the lies, and finally decide to do something about it. Some people have lost their lives for doing so, including guys like JFK.


Once you grasp that you have been systematically lied to, and in some cases by design, it is an act of self-harm to not apply discernment in deciding what narratives you accept.

Free speech saves souls. Deal with it.
 
3
•••
0
•••
Seriously -- you had to find an imaginary flight from 2014 as "proof" for this flight route?

The flight does not exist:

Show attachment 114650

Keep looking....



a) weapons of mass destruction?
-- joke?

he started a war from that fake news
a lot of young men died
women too
older people too
and animals too

funny?


b) I really love it when I have 4 points in a post
and the other person ignores 3 of them

c) and answers with something completely unrelated


do you know what "si tacuisses" what means?
 
Last edited:
0
•••
a) weapons of mass destruction?
-- joke?

he started a war from that fake news

Yes, that's the point. Fake news. Free speech exposes fake news. If people did not fall for fake news they would be less likely to send their sons into battle to participate in human sacrifices powered by fake news.

You are getting warmer, Frank. Love that.
 
1
•••
Back