People have criticized me for defending Rob Monster – as if defending someone against particular accusations implies agreement with that person's position in its totality; as if defending someone against X were incompatible with criticizing them for Y; as if all we human beings are capable of is joining 1 of 2 opposing teams, pro-someone or anti-someone, and then choosing to believe only what portrays them as a hero or as a villain.
But a decent respect for the facts often requires defending people we disagree with. Take, for example, this sloppy smear:
really ???
I can't believe my eyes
you are citing Joseph Goebbels?
to prove you are right?
you are supporting right-wing propaganda
and citing Joseph Goebbels
but you are a true Christian
and you love everybody
For heaven's sake!
Once again, the insinuation is that Rob Monster is a Nazi. What is the "evidence" this time? The fact that Rob quoted Goebbels, who was Hitler's antisemitic Minister of Propaganda. But look at the actual post:
https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-59#post-7227111
As you can see, Rob simultaneously published 2 quotations – 1 from Goebbels, yes, but the other from Ronald Reagan's CIA Director. Both quotes, as presented, endorse the idea that the State does and should
lie to the general public through an ongoing disinformation campaign. Based on the context as well as the content of the quotations themselves, it is OBVIOUS that Rob is presenting both Goebbels and the CIA Director as specimens of what he OPPOSES.
Certainly there are neo-Nazis who would quote Goebbels approvingly. But Rob clearly quoted Goebbels as an example of what the enemy is up to (from Rob's point of view), as proof that the State engages in widespread propaganda. From that, it is unreasonable and patently unfair to infer that Rob is a neo-Nazi. One mustn't be so deliberately obtuse as to see Rob quoting a Nazi and conclude as a knee-jerk reaction that Rob agrees with Nazism – nor to follow the fallacious syllogism that because (A) neo-Nazis are right-wing and (B) Rob Monster is right-wing, therefore (C) Rob Monster is a neo-Nazi.
Evidently,
@frank-germany, who has boasted repeatedly that he doesn't bother to read these posts, is still only skimming. Either that or he acted in bad faith to deliberately invert the meaning of Rob's post and portray Rob as a Nazi.
If Rob were getting good advice, someone would warn him not to post quotes from Nazis – not even if he does so in order to present them as the enemy. Why not? Because there will be people like
@frank-germany who are so eager to cast Rob as a neo-Nazi that they will – whether foolishly or purposely – misinterpret his intent. Out of context, this can appear in a news story phrased as follows: "Rob Monster, who quotes Goebbels to justify his worldview about the deep state, recently welcomed Gab.com, famous for its neo-Nazi members, to Epik." Literally true but utterly, utterly misleading.
Ever since Gab.com was transferred to Epik, Rob Monster has been vilified as everything from an antisemite to an outright Nazi. That distorted portrait is very convenient for the people who are opposed to Epik allowing Gab.com to remain registered because it reduces the complex issues of free speech, due process, de-platforming, and registrar neutrality to a simpleminded decision of pro-Nazi or anti-Nazi.
And that is why I defend Rob Monster. I'm defending Rob (as I'd defend anyone) from accusations that seem to be factually untrue. And I'm also defending Rob's decision (which I agree with) to stand up to extra-legal censorship pressure by allowing a domain name to continue to be registered as long as it is not unlawfully engaged. If no registrars stand up to pressure in that way, then the web ceases to be an open forum for communication.
At the same time, Rob and I have disagreed. In particular, I wanted Epik to remain a mainstream brand and behave as a purely neutral / agnostic registrar. So I objected to any promotion by Epik of controversial websites, recommended that Epik pursue a strategy that would not be aligned with any political ideology or cater to the needs of a minority of overtly polemical customers, and urged Rob personally to avoid controversial politics.
Though I personally have no love for alt-right websites like Gab or InfoWars (to put it mildly), it seems to me that registrars ought to treat domains equally and impartially, regardless of whether the registrar personnel like or loathe the content and the customer. Ideally, there would be no social trend driving controversial domains away from de-platforming elsewhere and toward Epik. As a society, we should have faith that bad ideas are defeated not through suppression but through communication. Valid arguments are naturally persuasive. If instead of attempting to persuade our opponents, we aim to shut them up or shut them down, then they will naturally (if erroneously) conclude that we lack valid arguments and that they, the persecuted, must therefore be right.
It is disappointing that yet another article in the mainstream press has chosen to pillory Epik instead of tempering criticism by doing justice to complex issues: de-platforming, free speech, and the role of domain registrars in supporting an open web. This time it's Vice:
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/gy4yg9/the-far-right-has-found-a-web-host-savior
During the Trump era in which reputable journalism is attacked as "fake news", it's particularly vexing that I (a progressive) can't find a single example of a mainstream article written about Epik that is unbiased or well researched. Look at how the Vice author lazily throws around pejoratives: "a little-known domain registrar called Epik". Really? How many domain registrars can the author list? GoDaddy and ... crickets. Of course, there is the typical confusion between registrars and web hosts. Or look at how the author recycles an earlier hit piece by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which begins with a picture of Rob Monster against a menacing red background and only gets worse from there. Or consider how the author presents this quotation overtly hostile to Epik without any attempt to analyze or counterbalance or even comment:
"As a registrar, Epik plays an important role in the online infrastructure necessary to keep far right extremists online".
No kidding. All domain registrars, by definition, "play an important role in the online infrastructure necessary to keep [ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING] online". Any halfway credible journalist should be able to understand that Epik's role as a registrar is broader than "far right extremists". Those extremists just happen to be the canary in the coal mine. These days, they are the first to go when censorship replaces free speech as a goal. And the author ought to be self-aware enough to realize that the statement quoted above takes for granted, as an unquestioned axiom, that certain kinds of views – in this case, "far right extremists" – ought to be banished utterly from the web.
An objective journalist would attempt to present both sides of the argument. That doesn't mean portraying the conflict as Nazis versus nice people or "far right extremists" versus moderates and progressives. No, it means questioning that assumption. The real conflict here – and a much more challenging issue to cope with for journalists as for registrars – is between those who believe in censorship and those don't. The agenda implicit in the quotation above (and practiced by actual de-platforming campaigns) can be summarized as follows:
- Certain opinions ought to be banished utterly from the web
- Forums that permit those opinions also ought to be banished utterly from the web
- Our online infrastructure itself – including payment providers, web hosts, and domain registrars – ought to be biased to exclude those opinions as well as publishers that permit those opinions
- Companies that are part of this online infrastructure should be coerced or pressured to withhold service to any website that permits those opinions
Many people think so. I don't. While it may be fair to criticize Epik or Rob Monster, a real journalist would at least acknowledge that there is legitimate principled disagreement about the desirability of de-platforming.
Sadly, it seems that even mainstream journalists are more interested in condemning those they disagree with than examining the principles and questions involved in a controversial issue. In their haste to condemn Epik, they can't be bothered even to learn the difference between a domain registrar and a web host, just as
@frank-germany couldn't be bothered to read 1 NamePros post thoroughly or fairly. Rather than present the most coherent case for both sides of a debate, they recycle old hit pieces and string together hostile or unflattering quotes.
Given Epik's status as a safe haven for domains under threat of de-platforming, there is a lot of ill will directed toward Epik by those who hate the content of those domains and who haven't yet grappled with the social consequences of censorship. Rob has done himself no favors by airing his own controversial opinions. Nor by chatting with extremists earlier. It is no slight to say that Rob is candid and ingenuous. He engages with others eagerly and speaks for himself. This trait has been exploited by unsympathetic writers such as the author of the SPLC article. And one hit piece becomes the basis of later lazier articles, which echo it and cite it. Even when Rob quotes Goebbels as an example of what he opposes, there are people ready and waiting to misread that as proof that Rob is a Nazi.
That's not to say that Rob can't benefit from some criticism. I'm not going to waste my time debating whether the earth is flat or whether Biblical prophets were the coevals of dinosaurs. Where my perspective already matches the consensus, any remark by me would be redundant. So I prefer to comment only when I'm in the minority or when nobody agrees with me.
One thing I would mention: The right-wing paranoia about George Soros being a sinister puppet master who controls the media and plots against mankind – that narrative has a rancid pedigree. It is a continuation of centuries-old antisemitism, which has invariably claimed that wealthy jews are secretly plotting to control the world. Rob alluded to Soros funding Vice magazine, which published the article about Epik that I just criticized. Does that mean that Rob is antisemitic? No. Clearly, Rob is an equal opportunity believer in conspiracies – doubting that Islamic terrorists were behind 9/11 and doubting the shape of the earth itself. In any case, like Hilary Clinton, George Soros is one of the favorite bogeymen of Fox News and the right-wing media generally. Roughly half the USA is terrified of his philanthropy. And, while there are certainly antisemitic undertones to the George Soros myth, it would hardly be fair to characterize half the country as antisemitic. No, this particular conspiracy theory spread widely through conduits carved by more explicitly antisemitic conspiracy theories long ago. Those who continue to spread it are not necessarily aware of its antisemitic underpinnings.
Nonetheless, if I were you, Rob, I would recommend not dilating overmuch on the evil influence of George Soros, customary though that topic is even on mainstream right-wing venues like Fox News. Given the hostility toward Epik and the prior accusations of antisemitism, there is no need to provide additional ammunition. If people want to complain about billionaires who control the media and who pull strings to influence world politics on a grand scale, they need look no further than Rupert Murdoch. In his case, there was no need for secret plots. He has operated in the open for decades.
Antisemitic and anti-muslim rhetoric leads to white-supremacist violence. It's a very real problem. At the same time, de-platforming is itself a very real issue that needs to be debated fairly. Both the impetus toward censorship and the bigotry people want to censor are symptoms of an increasingly polarized and dysfunctional society.