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?

 

[JayT]

I know in a comment above someone said something similar to:

even 'bad-ish publicity' can be good for business, and that epik will probably benefit from this...

Cloudflare / vultr should be the ones worried about losing our business after this. I use both extensively and have recommended them myself in the past, not now! I think epik had NO control that this 8chan thing landed his lap. I have to imagine cloudflare/vultr KNEW this, I think they were just looking for a reason to pit epik (a competing service) against us. A reason to point their finger, sound their horn against epik. I think they are the deception and losers here.

Ever transfer a domain? It's all automated with auth codes, and I think that's all that happened, other than the owner actually getting into contact with epik (guessing after they transferred the domain, without epik knowledge).

 

[Rob Monster]

I know in a comment above someone said something similar to:

even 'bad-ish publicity' can be good for business, and that epik will probably benefit from this...

Cloudflare / vultr should be the ones worried about losing our business after this. I use both extensively and have recommended them myself in the past, not now! I think epik had NO control that this 8chan thing landed his lap. I have to imagine cloudflare/vultr KNEW this, I think they were just looking for a reason to pit epik (a competing service) against us. A reason to point their finger, sound their horn against epik. I think they are the deception and losers here.

Ever transfer a domain? It's all automated with auth codes, and I think that's all that happened, other than the owner actually getting into contact with epik (guessing after they transferred the domain, without epik knowledge).

That is exactly what happened. I woke up Monday morning to a PR poop-storm because Chan started routing traffic on BitMitigate. We never contracted with them. We are their registrar, but their A-records are inactive at the moment.

 

[TCK]

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..


Show attachment 125591


Show attachment 125592

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

@Rob Monster,

Can you clarify what finally impacted your decision not to route the 8chan website. Was it Voxility's decision to suspend BitMitigate or the letter from congress? If it was the latter or a third reason, what made Voxility change their mind and once again allow BitMitigate to continue using their hosting?

 

[Rob Monster]

@Rob Monster,

Can you clarify what finally impacted your decision not to route the 8chan website. Was it Voxility's decision to suspend BitMitigate or the letter from congress? If it was the latter or a third reason, what made Voxility change their mind and once again allow BitMitigate to continue using their hosting?

We were not prepared to put our other customers at risk for a new customer who we barely know. It should be clear that I don't have a problem with lawful free speech. However, we do have a business to run, and are mainly focused on domain finance and domain registrar services. Free speech is just a core value but not a business.

 

[frank-germany]

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..


Show attachment 125591


Show attachment 125592

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

looks like somebody is taking care of you

I sincerely hope it's the one you think it is.

 

[frank-germany]

That is exactly what happened. I woke up Monday morning to a PR poop-storm because Chan started routing traffic on BitMitigate. We never contracted with them. We are their registrar, but their A-records are inactive at the moment.

the reason probably is
that you have a history
in relation to extreme right-wing activities
and mass shootings

I strongly recommend
you stay away from that for a while

 

[oldtimer]

the reason probably is
that you have a history
in relation to extreme right-wing activities
and mass shootings

I strongly recommend
you stay away from that for a while

I believe that Rob has finally seen the Light and has come to realize that he has to draw the line somewhere especially when it comes to those who are stoking violence. But he still cares a lot about free speech as do many of us here, I believe that it was unfair to put so much weight on Rob's shoulders when it came to regulating the activities of others on the Internet, as I said we need a completely neutral and unbiased organization (entity) to oversee such matters. I believe that this is an idea that is overdue and that will be received favorably in Congress. ( the details will be worked out later). One thing is for sure no one’s voice should be silenced just because it is against the interest or beliefs of someone else. I believe we have Rob to thank for for being so resilient about protecting free speech and opening everyone’s eyes to issues that really matter to the domain Industry. IMO

 

[frank-germany]

One thing is for sure no one’s voice should be silenced just because it is against the interest or beliefs of someone else.

I firmly believe that there is no need to give a person or a group
a forum to spread hate and promote violence.

I think it's no loss for humanity to silence those voices.

And it's not about believe-systems or interests
it's about protecting normal people.

I really don't care about free speech
when you define it as
"any hate can be promoted"

 

[kemjika11]

@dande thinks for himself. He also happens to be kind of accurate.

There are lots of inconvenient truths and facts.

The science of intelligence is over 100 years old.

We don't learn the obscure truths and facts, or at least few do.

They are complicated and we are only ~3000 to 5000 years out of the Bicameral Mind phase. Some are still in it (schizophrenics) and most others in transient states of Consciousness (mostly operating subconsciously)

You and him are using "race science" to distract from this particular situation and issue. THis discussion is not about race in general, so thats a distraction .We are talking about a specific community of people with specific hate issues/expression/intent, not race in general/worldwide. damn.

 

[JayT]

^ exactly! Not that I am racist, but you CAN be racist yet accepting, live in peace without violence, say separately. The problems proposed here are not necessary racist issues, but an unwillingness to accept things for what they are, and keep peace.

After some digging, you find out the very premise of the thread (besides trying to get in your 'racist punch') is flawed and misleading. Now you just have someone pointing their finger shouting "racist" their whole life...get a life!

 

[TCK]

as I said we need a completely neutral and unbiased organization (entity) to oversee such matters. I believe that this is an idea that is overdue and that will be received favorably in Congress.

Once Congress gets involved it will be a slippery slope to government control over the free flow of information online. To give a platform to hate speech is inviting the government to step in.

It is ironic the notion to allow anything online as long as it is "legal". So far the government has stayed away from regulating online content for the most part. Anywhere law enforcement gets involved are issues that are illegal offline as well (child porn, piracy, etc.).

The platforms that allow any "legal" free speech, including hate speech, because they want a world less regulated, less government controlled, more open, are unwittingly daring the government to create laws to control hate speech. And this, IMO, will lead to greater government oversight of what is appropriate. Like what is happening in Europe right now.

The letter from Congress to 8chan owners, posted by @Rob Monster, is a step in that direction.

The lesson is, better to self-regulate than let the government do it for you.

 

[Rob Monster]

Once Congress gets involved it will be a slippery slope to government control over the free flow of information online. To give a platform to hate speech is inviting the government to step in.

It is ironic the notion to allow anything online as long as it is "legal". So far the government has stayed away from regulating online content for the most part. Anywhere law enforcement gets involved are issues that are illegal offline as well (child porn, piracy, etc.).

The platforms that allow any "legal" free speech, including hate speech, because they want a world less regulated, less government controlled, more open, are unwittingly egging the government to create laws to control hate speech. And this, IMO, will lead to greater government oversight of what is appropriate. Like what is happening in Europe right now.

The letter from Congress to 8chan owners, posted by @Rob Monster, is a step in that direction.

The lesson is, better to self-regulate than let the government do it for you.

I suggest you study your Hegelian Dialectics. That is all.

 

[oldtimer]

I firmly believe that there is no need to give a person or a group
a forum to spread hate and promote violence.

I think it's no loss for humanity to silence those voices.

And it's not about believe-systems or interests
it's about protecting normal people.

I really don't care about free speech
when you define it as
"any hate can be promoted"

It is not up to me or you to silence people, it is the society at large that determines how much weight is given to the voice of certain individuals and groups when they exercise their right of free speech to promote hate.

This is what I said in another thread here a while back:

“Lets deplore hateful actions (or even hateful speech) that is meant to suppress, torture, and kill others, but lets do it at all levels and not close our eyes to what is being done by people themselves collectively or through their representatives who act on their behalf in the society. Did you vote to take people’s healthcare away or to leave them out on the streets to die by denying them adequate food and shelter, are you part of a group that wants to suppress and humiliate others in to extinction, have you promoted the systematic killing of unborn children through unnecessary abortions, have you allowed people’s lives to be derailed by abuse, delinquency, or drugs while you lived a good life yourself and even benefited from their pain and misery, then don't be surprised when AI holds you responsible for committing crimes against humanity some time soon.

Lets put an end to Hate, but lets end all Hate at all levels.”

 

[oldtimer]

The lesson is, better to self-regulate than let the government do it for you.

Self regulating in an structured manner through an Industry association or organization is one thing, but to let individuals at certain companies to censor others based on their own personal preferences, biases, and political, religious, and racial interest, affiliations, and agendas can not be accepted any longer. IMO

 

[TCK]

Self regulating in an structured manner through an Industry association or organization is one thing, but to let individuals at certain companies to censor others based on their own personal preferences, biases, and political, religious, and racial interest, affiliations, and agendas can not be accepted any longer. IMO

If they do that then they won't be in business very long. Clients will leave in droves.

 

[offthehandle]

the government to create laws to control hate speech.

You mean like New Zealand’s new laws. Have you read about them? Its Incredible.

 

[TCK]

You mean like New Zealand’s new laws. Have you read about them? Its Incredible.

Can you post a link?

The problem is of going from one extreme to another. There is overreach in the government. For many, a binary option is the only option. But saying "no" to hate speech, shouldn't be "no" to free speech. If you have an issue with immigration and the fact that the population from one race is growing while the population of another is dwindling, why can't you express your concerns in an intelligent, coherent, manner that will make others of different POV's listen to you? If your only currency is hate, then your only solution is to kill. If you, as a provider, give a platform to that hate and then tragedy occurs, then you are complicit. At least in the eyes of the victims, their families, and those that empathize with them.

 

[lambo.com]

You and him are using "race science" to distract from this particular situation and issue. THis discussion is not about race in general, so thats a distraction .We are talking about a specific community of people with specific hate issues/expression/intent, not race in general/worldwide. damn.

What are these specifics that group so many people together?

 

[kemjika11]

What are these specifics that group so many people together?

social isolation and awkwardness
mental problems
family problems
loneliness

 

[offthehandle]

Can you post a link?

You might dig around too. There are ton's of articles not just there. I recall Germany charging someone recently also. I stand corrected on NZ "laws passed", there is a law on the books, there a a couple it appears and I am out of time to cover anything more than below.

It evidently has not been used for awhile according to further reading on behalf of defending what i wrote at this time. You know, I quickly read many articles daily. I should have said new NZ "proposed laws", "under debate" and "proposed" as the 2015 law is stupid and bad enough.

2015 "Protection Act".

https://www.consumerprotection.govt.nz/general-help/consumer-laws/online-safety-laws-and-rules/

https://www.victoria.ac.nz/news/201...role-to-decide-which-ideas-are-right-or-wrong

"Viewed in this light, hate speech legislation is simply a euphemistic term for handing to the state the power to determine what is and is not acceptable political discourse. That is just not a power the state ought to have in a democratic society."

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1906/S00264/justice-minister-confirms-acts-fears-on-hate-speech.htm

“Andrew Little suggested in a Stuff op-ed today that he wants to add new ‘protected categories’ to the Human Rights Act, strengthen its enforcement, and follow the UK’s lead on hate speech laws.

“All of this confirms what ACT has been saying since March: the Government wants criminalise opinions it deems offensive.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/po...ech-do-we-need-to-update-our-human-rights-act


"The Government wants to do it up. Justice Minister Andrew Little has said he wants to add to the "protected categories" of people in the act, and other MPs have said there needs to be tougher enforcement.

In other words, we would end up with a hate speech law. If the Government is half serious about doing what it's foreshadowed, we would find ourselves in a similar position to the country that's gone farthest down that track, the United Kingdom, where people have been detained for sending tweets.

21 months in prison for incorrect gender addressing, what a f'ing idiot joke law and system.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=12202875

21 months in prison.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-ze...hristchurch-video-sentenced-today-2019-06-18/

This Arps guy held in jail a couple months no bail, sentenced in June.
https://www.9news.com.au/world/nzer...ting-vid/043ca816-2ec9-478f-a700-8edb7f22616f

https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...dia-new-zealand-white-supremacist-2019-226766

No bail.

https://www.9news.com.au/world/no-b...ng-video/f0650ec1-1003-43f3-93a1-c101d317d62b

Arrested several

https://www.9news.com.au/world/six-...k-images/5c2513fd-4586-4021-8665-71bfc804f7ed

There needs to be a "Do not fly, do not visit list of Countries" around the world for US Citizens to boycot, and NOT to vacation or travel to.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2757406

Abstract
The number of countries that limit speech that would likely be protected under the US First Amendment has recently increased. On the other hand new information technology is making speech made in the United States by an American citizen accessible outside the United States, exposing the speaker to consequences for violating the free speech limitations set in international law or the domestic laws of other countries. These Americans are therefore often forced to make a difficult choice: exercise in the US their free speech as guaranteed by the US First Amendment and potentially expose themselves to prosecution and other legal consequences overseas, or accept those free speech limitations to avoid the consequences of violating them.

This Article argues that the US recourse to reservation and refusal to ratify treaties that limit free speech may not be enough in today’s era of globalization, information technology, and free movement of people. This approach may shelter the United States from its international human rights obligations, but it does not provide US citizens protection in countries that have incorporated these treaties into their domestic law. Also the use of diplomacy to free American victims of such limitations is not sustainable. The Article advocates rather for the United States to adopt an international relations free speech strategy that starts from the recognition that free speech is not absolute, rather than focusing on the slippery slope argument of free speech limitation. From this recognition, the United States could lead other countries in developing better standards in defining protected and unprotected speech, and thus ensure her citizens better free speech protection overseas.