8Chan & Epik

[MapleDots]

Controversial web forum 8chan has moved its domain name to a new registrar after it was linked to at least one of the two mass shootings that occurred in the US over the weekend.

According to Whois records, it’s just jumped to racist-friendly Epik, having been registered at Tucows since 2003.

The switch appears to have happened in the last few hours. At time of writing, you’re going to get different results depending which Whois server you ping.

Some servers continue to report Tucows as the registrar of record, perhaps using cached data, but Epik’s result looks like this:

http://domainincite.com/24593-after-more-racist-shootings-take-one-guess-which-registrar-8chan-just-switched-to?

 

[oldtimer]

this isn't a place to debate political views except as they pertain to the domaining industry.

The problem here is those who abuse free speech to stoke violence through their political, religious, and racial beliefs and ideologies, if we as a society choose to solve our problems with violence rather than logic and compassion then all these violent tendencies will eventually emerge at a lager scale in the form of conflict and War. Well perhaps these are more serious and bigger issues that go beyond the scope of this forum and the domain Industry, but in the age of Internet domain names are at the heart of a lot of these issues as to whom should police the Internet to make sure that domain names are not used for websites that stoke violence or that promote illegal or immoral activities. If violence is chosen over logic and compassion I predict that we are going to see the start of Internet Blackouts in the near future which although might be a rare event at first, but will soon become a common part of our lives and that is surely going to affect everyone here. IMO

 

[Paul]

as far as I understand
that's not the reason
@Rob Monster doesn't like cloudflare

when I recall rightly
it has to do with black vans

I got a good laugh out of that.

As someone who's been following Cloudflare since its early days, I find this turn of events quite ironic. Cloudflare used to be regarded much like BitMitigate is today--in the public eye, it was often seen as a safe haven for controversial websites. This was because they refused to take down websites without due process. They've had a few scuffles with larger ISPs and even governments over the years who have wanted sites removed from Cloudflare.

To the best of my knowledge, the Daily Stormer incident was the first time they gave into public pressure to remove a site. Cloudflare is currently attempting to expand their efforts in Australia and New Zealand, two countries which have been rather outspokenly in favor of requiring private companies like Cloudflare to censor content that traverses their platforms. This is entirely speculation--do not take it as fact--but I wouldn't be surprised if the removal of 8chan from their platform was at least partially motivated by their interest in appeasing their A/NZ audience.

Cloudflare is more resilient to these pressures that most companies; this is only the second time they've given in. Most network operators of comparable size are much more eager to pass along a hot potato--hence Voxility's response. They don't want the bad press, so when they're called out in the media, they drop the offending website/company/platform/whatever. It's not so much an organized effort as it is an industry-wide weakness to bad press. (But isn't that to be expected?)

To clarify, I'm making no judgment of the responses of each company here for the time being. While I'm knowledgeable enough to understand the technical side of these incidents, I don't have a clear understanding of the social implications yet.

 

[carob]

To the best of my knowledge, the Daily Stormer incident was the first time they gave into public pressure to remove a site.

Yes and at the time they were resisting and saying they were neutral, but then they booted DS and said the reason they did so was because DS were actively claiming that CF supported them, not just provided a service.

That is why I posted the link here to CF's blog giving their reasons for this new boot - they are not claiming to be so neutral now, instead are saying somewhat vaguely that the issue is the rule of law. They do say in their blog that laws may have to change. You are probably right that there is business logic behind this.

 

[Paul]

The problem here is those who abuse free speech to stoke violence through their political, religious, and racial beliefs and ideologies, if we as a society choose to solve our problems with violence rather than logic and compassion then all these violent tendencies will eventually emerge at a lager scale in the form of conflict and War. Well perhaps these are more serious and bigger issues that go beyond the scope of this forum and the domain Industry, but in the age of Internet domain names are at the heart of a lot of these issues as to whom should police the Internet to make sure that domain names are not used for websites that stoke violence or that promote illegal or immoral activities. If violence is chosen over logic and compassion I predict that we are going to see the start of Internet Blackouts in the near future which although might be a rare event at first, but will soon become a common part of our lives and that is surely going to affect everyone here. IMO

We all agree that violence is a problem, but there are few people who are qualified to understand both the social and technical implications of these issues well enough to truly come up with a solid solution--or even understand the consequences of the proposed solutions. I am certainly not among them, and I doubt that anyone else here is. In general, we're a forum of investors, not philosophers, sociologists, or networking engineers. If our debate strays too far from the portion of the issue most relevant to our industry, then we risk seeding misconceptions, spreading misinformation, and misrepresenting the issue--the exact behavior that is often criticized in these threads.

It's significantly easier for us to grasp the consequences of these issues in the context of our industry. For example:

• What does it mean for us if registrars are able to reject customers without due process? (This is the industry-specific manifestation of, "Should private companies be allowed to reject customers?")
• Will this affect which registrars we trust?
• Is the bad press associated with this incident likely to harm our industry as a whole?

 

[oldtimer]

We all agree that violence is a problem, but there are few people who are qualified to understand both the social and technical implications of these issues well enough to truly come up with a solid solution--or even understand the consequences of the proposed solutions. I am certainly not among them, and I doubt that anyone else here is. In general, we're a forum of investors, not philosophers, sociologists, or networking engineers. If our debate strays too far from the portion of the issue most relevant to our industry, then we risk seeding misconceptions, spreading misinformation, and misrepresenting the issue--the exact behavior that is often criticized in these threads.

It's significantly easier for us to grasp the consequences of these issues in the context of our industry. For example:

• What does it mean for us if registrars are able to reject customers without due process? (This is the industry-specific manifestation of, "Should private companies be allowed to reject customers?")
• Will this affect which registrars we trust?
• Is the bad press associated with this incident likely to harm our industry as a whole?

I don’t believe that the registrars, hosting companies, or even the registries are qualified to police domains and websites as it eventually boils down to the preferences, biases, and agendas of one person in that company, I believe that its time to create a New Organization that can oversee the take down and discontinuation of domain names and websites, a new organization that is not associated with ICANN and that is completely neutral and unbiased. IMO

 

[frank-germany]

I don’t believe that the registrars, hosting companies, or even the registries are qualified to police domains and websites as it eventually boils down to the preferences, biases, and agendas of one person in that company, I believe that its time to create a New Organization that can oversee the take down and discontinuation of domain names and websites, a new organization that is not associated with ICANN and that is completely neutral and unbiased. IMO

why can't a hosting company
form their business after their belief system?


we would end with

Christ hosting
Bible Hosting
Muslim hosting
Koran Hosting
right-wing hosting
left-wing hosting

" we offer cheap reliable Pooddle Hosting "

for domain registrars I tend to think
it's just a character-number-combination
translated into IP's
so why should they care?


but then they should strictly separate their offer
between hosting and registrar

 

[oldtimer]

why can't a hosting company
form their business after their belief system?


we would end with

Christ hosting
Bible Hosting
Muslim hosting
Koran Hosting
right-wing hosting
left-wing hosting

" we offer cheap reliable Pooddle Hosting "

for domain registrars I tend to think
it's just a character-number-combination
translated into IP's
so why should they care?


but then they should strictly separate their offer
between hosting and registrar

Its not anyone’s “belief system” that is the problem, the problem is when they want to force their beliefs on others and or who want to suppress or eliminate those who have a different “belief system” that is against their interest. We need a New Organization that is completely neutral and unbiased to police domain names and websites. IMO

 

[TCK]

Some of the recent posts make it sound like hosting and infrastructure providers are censoring willy-nilly sites they don't agree with. This is absolute nonsense. We are talking about a few extreme hate sites that everyone agrees are a cesspool of hate.

The loudest voice in a democracy is the wallet, unfortunately. I don't doubt there are other hate-filled sites accessed undetected through CloudFlare and Voxility servers, and many other hosts. However, when they gain notoriety, "embrace infamy", and get media attention, then they will be shut-down as well.

A registrar/host may get free media exposure by giving such sites a platform, due to their notoriety, but in the long-term it is not a sustainable business policy. Most people still use their God-given moral code and conscience which dictates how they spend their money. So providers, in turn, need to think of their public image. Even if they are B2B, their clients are serving the general public.

As far as free speech is concerned, I welcome you to tell me things I hate to hear but you don't have to use vulgar, dehumanizing and/or threatening language against my person, family, or race. That's why the sites in question only feed their own hate and ideology. They don't speak to anyone that doesn't agree with their POV, they shut everyone else off. They swim in their own hate. So giving them a platform will never open a door to a reasonable conversation or debate. That's a fallacy. Let them go underground because nothing good is going to come out if you give them a voice.

 

[frank-germany]

https://www.geekwire.com/2019/p-o-b...tle-area-company-tied-8chan-el-paso-shooting/


QUOTE
It’s been a tough week for Epik Inc., a web services provider in the Seattle region. First, the company lost access to its servers. Now, its physical mailbox.

Sammamish, Wash.-based MailPost is booting Epik as a customer because of its ties to 8chan, a site implicated in the recent shooting in El Paso, Texas.

Immediately before opening fire in a Walmart and killing 22 people, the suspected shooter posted a racist manifesto to 8chan, a site that often supports vitriolic discussions. 8chan’s network provider, Cloudflare, cut ties with the site, calling it “a cesspool of hate” in a statement. The move took 8chan offline and that’s when it sought out Epik.

Previously: Seattle-area web services provider becomes haven for online extremism following El Paso shooting
On several occasions, Epik has provided safe haven to far-right websites after other web services providers blacklisted them. Using Epik’s services, 8chan was able to briefly get back online before the company whose servers Epik rents pulled the plug. Epik is still scrambling to find alternative servers.

Amid that search, Epik will now need to find a new PO box. MailPost owner Jamey Davis told GeekWire he emailed Epik founder Rob Monster on Tuesday, informing him he was no longer welcome as a customer.

He’s promoting an atmosphere where people can post hate.
“I just don’t believe in what he stands for,” Davis said. “He’s a big believer in free speech but I think he’s using it in the wrong way. He’s promoting an atmosphere where people can post hate, they can post racism, they can post these manifestos on these shootings … we just want to distance ourselves from it because it’s not something I believe in.”

Davis noted that MailPost has become a hub for local businesses because Sammamish does not have a traditional post office. Epik became a customer in January, though Davis said he has never met Monster face-to-face. Asked whether Davis thought other companies would follow suit and disassociate with Epik, he said, “I hope so.”

Monster did not immediately respond to GeekWire’s request to comment on the MailPost development. On Monday, he noted that Epik did not solicit 8chan’s business and said the company showed up unexpectedly as a customer.

“We have also not made a definitive decision about whether to provide DDoS mitigation or Content Delivery services for them,” Monster said at the time. “We will evaluate this in the coming days.”

QUOTE ENDS

 

[oldtimer]

Let them go underground because nothing good is going to come out if you give them a voice.

That’s the whole point of this discussion, I don’t think that any one person or company should make this call, as I said We need to create a New Organization that is completely neutral and unbiased to police domain names and websites. IMO

 

[TCK]

That’s the whole point of this discussion, I don’t think that any one person or company should make this call, as I said We need to create a New Organization that is completely neutral and unbiased to police domain names and websites. IMO

A company should have the right to decide what is best for their employees, clients, and investors. If no law is broken or human rights interfered with, this is the decision of the company directors. In most cases, businesses make the ethical call. If anyone feels they have been wronged in the decision, they can take legal action.

 

[JayT]

They can and will ban whoever they want. But that doesn't mean they exactly NEED to...I don't think these registrar should be held accountable for the content they host. No matter how 'famous' something seems to someone, another (the "registrar owner") may know nothing about what's going on for each domain, and they shouldn't have to know! That would be asking too much.

It's a sad reality, but ALL content can't be policed by any one person or 'new agency' as being suggested, it just can't. There will be plenty more 'de-platforming', going forward. There's a great divide in fundamental ideals among almost everyone right now. You can't silence a group, by de-platforming, you only move them. The way to get rid of criminals is to put them in jail, put the crazies in mental inst. This isn't happening. In fact, a lot of criminals are being EMBRACED. It isn't the first time in history where being a criminal was embraced by so many neither.

It's like, if you tell a lie enough, it becomes true. We live in a world that is beginning to believe that the loudest voice in the room is right, and it's flawed ideology...yet, the loudest voice belief is similar to the basis of democracy, and this is why the rift feels political.

This whole post was just made to rip on epik for no good reason. This maple guy wants to be at this guys throat for some reason. He wants to be the loudest voice and will use anything to convince people epik is racist. People jump on the bandwagon, start suggesting that this persons or that job is to censor this crap. Well, it's everyone's job, but you don't get anything done with calling ppl racist-friendly (being racist isn't a crime, btw)! This thread was created to do this exact thing we are fighting now, a mis-placed provocation.

 

[blank]

That’s the whole point of this discussion, I don’t think that any one person or company should make this call, as I said We need to create a New Organization that is completely neutral and unbiased to police domain names and websites. IMO

Yes - and make sure someone completely unbiased manages it. Maybe we can find someone here on NamePros

There is no 100% right or 100% wrong when it come to this just like there is no 100% good or 100% evil.

...and beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[tonyk2000]

We need to create a New Organization that is completely neutral and unbiased to police domain names and websites

Organization is a legal entity, it should then be located somewhere. So it would be regulated by existing laws of some territory (country or state) to begin with. So, the question: where such an organization should be located? And how should it deal with cases where the website (domain or content) is illegal in one country, but perfectly legal in another country?

 

[Optimal Names]

...........I believe that its time to create a New Organization that can oversee the take down and discontinuation of domain names and websites, a new organization that is not associated with ICANN and that is completely neutral and unbiased. IMO

Humans - neutral and unbiased? Good luck, has never and will never happen.

 

[TCK]

They can and will ban whoever they want. But that doesn't mean they exactly NEED to...I don't think these registrar should be held accountable for the content they host. No matter how 'famous' something seems to someone, another (the "registrar owner") may know nothing about what's going on for each domain, and they shouldn't have to know! That would be asking too much.

Having famous clients is good for business. Having infamous clients, not so much.

 

[offthehandle]

• What does it mean for us if registrars are able to reject customers without due process? (This is the industry-specific manifestation of, "Should private companies be allowed to reject customers?")

• Will this affect which registrars we trust?

• Is the bad press associated with this incident likely to harm our industry as a whole?

Why should a registrar have any due process? "No shoes, no shirt, no service", is an example as you recall those sorts of signs hanging in the front of say beach front establishments dating back to the 60's. Private retail businesses require certain standards in order to enter their establishment. Web hosts and Registrars cave to public pressure it seems to me, as Rob mentioned "some larger force" above. On the flip side, when one company controls 60% of the market, that's a problem. When no alternative registrars exist due to their spineless business acumen- that's the problem. Or "Weenies" as @Rob Monster calls them. How many more Weenies in the future are going to cave in?

It's nice to see you write here Paul. Those are fair and good questions. Registrars in light of this recent event might refuse Customers. At least the weak knee ones. This "highly sensitive" social problem I believe is due to social media and instant-everything communication. Someone writes a hit piece, it gets posted on social media, and immediate instant public dogpile reactions.

As the Rolling Stones found with their drug arrests in their early days, negative publicity was publicity- free at that. Rob will probably get a boost perhaps in his business.

"Harming our industry"- well, I think like above comments made that this "Chan" problem brings attention to potentially cause more attacks on independent domains and websites. Yet, the irony those who write about this crap in "news" are no longer journalists, but opinion writers and promote it for eyeballs on both sides daily in the news do not help the problem. Meanwhile, hate groups are on Facebook and large entities on social media, yet no talk about that. Facebook and Google would imo like to wipe out websites they don't agree with. Silicon Valley has everybody it seems by the huevos. Seems like the agenda driven writers of such news even at Forbes as I pointed out above become "Drivel" and crap about incidents, people, etc. are the problem. People in general want a quick fix, take one pill and solve their problems or societies problems that have been the same since Man's existence. Nothing new, except news that travels fast and gets instant reactions.

Look at the other past events and take it off this one, hundreds of tragedies- say like the Dirty war in Argentina in the late 70's, or Idi Amin, Khadaffi, Saddam, Maduro or name that dictator who killed many thousands- there was no social media and or censorship, and not much attention or outrage, news didn't travel or was purposely masked by mass media, who knows. Documentary film makers and 60 minutes used to be the main sources for these stories. Back in time with no social media, there was no public outrage worldwide and political push since no instant real communication worldwide, no problem except for the local populations sadly. Why should NZ and A laws and opinions matter about the USA? Or vice versa?

The general public might actually push further and further to police or censor individual websites and blogs that are distasteful and give Zuckerberg and is ilk a free pass for more control. Meanwhile other "media" makes up stories and lies daily. Has the National Inquirer rag been censored before? I dunno, but certainly for years people actually bought that stupid rag at news counters with headlines that are beyond any sort of any rational or logical debate.

No derail here- but this "Industry" has a much larger problem of business ethics than that sort of trust with Registrars not regging controversial names or holding them like this one news report among many:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/le...holding-domains-hostage.1141035/#post-7275039

As a fairly new investor, I've pointed out numerous times in various threads that market making, price discovery games, shill bidding, group and partnership bidding, bidding bots that people complain about instead of just not bidding on those platforms, fake appraisal tools, people who write about and report fake sales and manipulation of related data as to real news.

If a sales is not made or falls through, no big deal- the people involved should report that it's back on the market and get more publicity.

"Industry Trust"? "Bad Press"- Where is the news follow up or retraction here?

https://www.namepros.com/threads/nd...g-new-chart-but-its-a-big-win-for-kb.1126860/

How about looking within the Industry news reporting about itself? Reported as sold for 7 figures, still resolves to the brokers page months after (March 2019) Is this fake domain news reported?, yet the news article still exists as a sensational news item, no follow up To me that is like National Inquirer. Maybe change the headline "Aliens abducted Chocolate" and nobody knows what planet it was sent to.

That type of "news" and "reporting" hurts the industry worse that outside forces.

 

[Paul]

It's nice to see you write here Paul.

I usually try to stay out of these discussions because I don't want my own opinions--or lack thereof--to carry too much weight or be associated with NamePros. Our administration has a diverse range of political, moral, and religious beliefs, and it wouldn't be fair to present my own opinions publicly in a manner that could be construed as representing the entirety of NamePros.

These discussions have a tendency to derail rather quickly. I'm hoping that asking on-topic questions and clarifying technical points (my own area of expertise) will help to mitigate this.

 

[Rob Monster]

As far as I understand, epik as a registrar did not fail so there was nothing to recover from.
I was referring to the the fast recovery of the other services they offer.

BitMitigate had a replacement network online with 4 POPs running on our own IPs and BGP within 8 hours of both Voxility and Vultr terminating services.

Epik registrar was otherwise not impacted.

And this morning a global Tier 1 network provider reached out and wants to work with us. They see the nonsense and will ignore the chatter from the leftist radicals.

And guess what @frank-germany? I thank my Father in Heaven for wisdom, knowledge and providence. He has yet to let me down, though you do disappoint me sometimes.

I expect 8Chan will stay down until after the Congressional testimony that is being scheduled on 8Chan..

Perhaps they will use the interim time to sort out their policies.

 

[DNWon]

It’s been a tough week for Epik Inc., a web services provider in the Seattle region. First, the company lost access to its servers. Now, its physical mailbox.

This is what Rob probably thinks of this!