Located in Reviews, started by Rob Monster, Apr 16, 2020
There's only one that will be the judge of that and that most certainly isn't you.
You didn't come out of hibernation just for this now did you? If not, good to have you back!
Should I not follow the money as your boss suggested?
I never agreed with conspiracies being brought into this thread to begin with.
Just so I'm not mistaken, you are OK with conspiracies being introduced as long as it supports epik, and not the other way around. Is that correct?
That's funny. Because, here I thought you were benefiting from (or getting paid) by epik. And similarly, I had thought you were doing the devils work.
I don't say that lightly.
Thanks for stopping by @Lox
We are lost without you.
Please come back soon.
I have been lurking namepros for years. But reading this thread I decided to make an account and chime in.
Because besides domaining, I do care a lot about the policies regarding domains. As domainers and endusers we have an interest in domains not being taken down or taken over without due process. I am not opposed to regulations on the internet, but they should have a legal basis and be enforced via the law, so people can actually be aware of those regulations, follow them, and make their case before their internet presence is removed. So I fully understood Epik's decision to rescue certain domains that were about to be taken down without due process. Because mob justice is no justice.
So when I read Epik's Wikipedia page last year I was also very surprised by how one-sided the story was. Last year I tried to improve the Wikipedia article by giving it a more neutral perspective, as is in the interest of the Wikipedia readers. But that was also reverted within a day. It's really strange how activists seem to take some pages hostage, while Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia.
First, welcome to the forum, LanceSky. Great to have your here. Would love it if you post a link to your portfolio and tell us a little about yourself.
The issue is that Epik rescued only very specific extreme domains and sites that posted harmful content. No domains were rescued on the other spectrum. Although I am not arguing whether or not the writer(s) of the Wikipedia page were biased, but you will notice the references at the bottom of the page and those appear to be the sources.
I argued before, that @Rob Monster and Epik would better spend their time in a media campaign as opposed to a war of words with the Wikipedia writer(s). They have to change the tide.
Thank you! Well, I'm an entrepreneur from the Netherlands. I originally studied law, but I haven't done much with my degree as during my studies I started making money online. My first encounter with the domain market was actually when I tried to acquire a business domain, but the domain holder wanted a 0 more than I was willing to pay. After which I realized I was on the wrong side of the table. So since then I have been selling domains from business ideas that I haven't found the time for. And apparently there is a market for that. But I haven't organized them into a portfolio yet.
I am honestly not really aware of cases where registrars turned on domains out of public pressure, while the user-generated content was actually being moderated. Normally that only happens if there are clear criminal activities going on, where there is no intent to abide by the law. Where it is pointless to refer people to the website owner or hoster. These cases seemed pretty unique. Cloudflare also considered these cases unique. But it was certainly unique in their high profile, as everyone across the industry started to get involved.
But even if it is as you say, should a person not intervene for something he believes is right, if he hasn't done so before? Or should you applaud his efforts, that he has come into action? And do his actions in any way indicate that other domains aren't welcome on his platform? Because I get the impression he is trying to create awareness that domains are indeed welcome on his platform.
Rob Monster himself is also a relevant source. As he was directly involved in this case. He had publicly declared his intentions. And the Wikipedia articles are about him. So they should be able to cite his views. Although I guess Wikipedia has different standards than journalists and courts.
You are absolutely right about that.
Or he could call the registrar to take down the website that hosts harmful content. Although, Wikipedia could always move their domain to Epik. So I guess that wouldn't work.
As for domains we serve, we cover the gamut of lawful free speech. There is a small number of these domains that have narratives that are objectionable to some.
Our policy has not really changed:
(1) We believe domain owners are entitled to due process
(2) We comply with court orders.
(3) In the absence of a court order, we use discernment on who to route.
There is such a thing as "hate speech", i.e. it is typically content that is projected from a base of indiscriminate hate from someone who typically hates themselves. I have met a few so I know of what I speak.
The funny thing is that as you go down the rabbit hole, you will find that both radical left and the radical right, are disproportionately chaos agents. We try hard not to empower them.
That being said, the truth is that there are actually a lot less boogeymen out there than the mainstream media wants you to imagine. The MSM often can trot out canned multimedia narratives like these:
On a related note, I did have a lovely hour long phone call today with Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia. ICYMI, Larry had some interesting things to say this week about Wikipedia:
This man has not had nearly as much media attention as he deserves, particularly considering what/who he knows and has seen. Let's see what happens next.
Thanks for sharing your experience @LanceSky. Again, glad you are here. Share your portfolio is you have one. It will give you exposure that may lead to sales.
Rob Monster is not a source due to obvious bias. Clearly, contrasting views/sources should be used in the article, if available. It is the impression of many on this forum that Rob uses/used controversial news to get more attention to Epik and maybe SEO points.
This is a good first step. You need to get positive media attention outside of Np. Here you seem to be getting positive posts from only a handful of the same members. A journalist will not take that seriously.
Or, the focus could be on the content (rather than personally attacking wikipedia(&other internet) members), and comparing epik article vs other wikipedia registrar articles.
Focusing on the content will help establish what is/was allowed, such as what domain industry blogs are credible enough to be included in wikipedia articles.
Noting, the GoDaddy wikipedia article includes citations from DomainNameWire.com
Yet, Epik's wikipedia article has no citations from domain industry news sites. And that's not due to a lack of Epik related content produced from domain niche sites such as DomainNameWire.com
I highlighted "It's time for domain name renewals beyond 10 years" because I think it's notable information. Though, arguably, could be seen as marketing, despite it being an innovative novel idea. Nonetheless, if other registrars are allowed to cite sources such as DomainNameWire.com (a great publication IMO) then, that ability should be extended to all registrars.
Also citing GoDaddy's wikipedia page, BobParsons.me is a citable source?
So why can't Rob Monster be cited? #doublestandard #oversight #focusonthecontent
I agree Rob Monster is clearly biased. And I also agree that it appears Rob/Epik exploits controversial news to get more attention to Epik.
However, if BobParsons.me is a quotable source for a competitor, then Rob Monster should be afforded the same opportunity.
(((though I question if Rob is capable of speaking on any topic (including prayer) without mentioning/marketing Epik)))
Just noticed @NameShiba brought this up back in April on the wikitalk page.
So, that got me curious, what news outlets (besides domain industry blogs) have covered Epik.
As a registrar, Epik is best (or was first) known by national headlines for empowering/enabling far right media, my first thought was to verify this by checking <epik.com site:breitbart.com>
It doesn't appear that Epik has been covered by Breitbart for more than a handful of results. Notably for Gab.com and 8chan.
Though, even if Breitbart had other related news stories about epik, it wouldn't have been allowed as a wikipedia source for facts.
See: Wikipedia Bans Right Wing Site Breitbart as a Source for Facts [by Vice.com]
<epik.com site:cnbc.com> 1
<epik.com site:cnn.com> 2
<epik.com site:npr.org> 2
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/665648215 [Gab Server Subpoenaed By Pennsylvania Attorney General]
<epik.com site:abc.com> 0
<epik.com site:nbc.com> 0
<epik.com site:washingtonpost.com> 6
<epik.com site:nytimes.com> 2
<epik.com site:bloomberg.com> 1
<epik.com site:theguardian.com> 1
<epik.com site:wsj.com> 2
<epik.com site:usnews.com> 5
<epik.com site:wired.com> 1
<epik.com site:usatoday.com> 1
<epik.com site:vice.com> 7
Will President Trumps executive order have any effect on this?
Suggestion to Epik: Hire a neutral PR person. Call it the President of Communications and Strategy. And perhaps more importantly stop harassing wikipedia members. Harass the content, sure. But not the member(s).
Support ALL causes, not just incel or far right narratives. Then maybe, epik will likely notice an uptick of positive articles written about them. Because frankly right now, I'm embarrassed to be an epik customer. And the only people I feel comfortable recommending epik to, are folks who lean towards what appears to be Rob's cause of supporting the far right opposed to being neutral. As everybody else (nondomainer) I mention epik to, cites an apparent far right narrative. Thus I ask, shouldn't registrars be agnostic?
IMO Epik Is Neutral but because US mainstream media is for the most-part not neutral but far-left, when Epik supports something that is far-right they see a story. Support something that's far-left and that's not newsworthy, that's what they expect. That said, what's with things being labeled as "far-right" that are neither left nor right?
That said, I think battling Wikipedia is a waste of energy that's likely to be unfruitful. A PR person who could get coverage for the other side of Epik that isn't so "sensational" to the left-leaning media I think it the real play. No effort is necessary to get coverage for something the media deems "sensational", anything else a skilled PR person or team is necessary.
News stories about Epik's innovations for example would be nice, but without a good RP person to show why its a worthwhile story, such will be ignored. Reporters are busy if its not sensational the immediate ability to drive readership/listenership/viewership isn't apparent without a PR person to show them the value of a story. But sensation always sells.
If we are talking about being embarrassed, I'm embarrassed by the political division in the US. (And not so much about being an Epik customer).
I can see an argument when comparing Epik board member(s).
One CEO appears to cater to the right.
The other board member appears to cater towards a different direction.
So if you consider left + right = neutral then perhaps lead with equal sides?
"If you build it, they will come."
There are several Epik stories that could be garner news attention. But vouching for somebody /somecompany who came across as an ambulance chaser to the far right is going to take a leap of faith, or solid conviction.
I don't want to turn this into a list what you're embarrassed about thread. We can create a new thread for that if need be. Alternatively there is the nP political thread for politics discussion.
Though, to answer your question regarding the embarrassment of a US divide. Yes, I absolutely feel it. It makes me feel less United. But what really eats at my core is the racist or insensitive message one political side seems to be polarizing. Fact is, every US state is different. And each state seemingly faces their own unique racial challenges. Heck, it can be broken down to neighborhood streets in some areas. So zoom out a bit, if I consider myself an American, does that mean I embody a little bit of each US state? Does that mean I embody the view point of the ever-changing federal government? Can I chose to side with the supreme court over the President? And when did I become so significant enough that I should be engaging to the point of choosing sides? I think that's why nP has the political threads, for rants like this paragraph.
Rant aside, I don't think I'm significant enough to help ease the embarrassment of the US division. And at the end of the day, I'm proud to be a US citizen. Being an American means much more to me than being an Epik customer.
Though, regarding the Epik/Wikipedia divide, I think that's a much more manageable task. My immediate future is uncertain, but if I can find the time, I'm going to do a deep breakdown on all registrar Wikipedia articles to demonstrate the clear multiple points of bias.
I expect an uphill battle if I join wiki and engage with Wikipedia mods. There seems to be lots of curve balls to entry points that go against the grain of others. But to allow journalists to write the history books without the input from the boots on the ground, well then, how accurate will that account be?
My point being, that Wikipedia article needs changing. Just as Molly deserves a sincere apology from Rob.
Neutral means they cater to no one side over the other so in a way yes, and still no. Yes Rob supports free speech and has let some questionable stuff go on, but honestly I prefer that to a registrar playing judge and jury like NameCheap recently did.
No argument here. In fact that is why I say I am embarssed at the policitcal devide in the US. Because it should not be that way. And so being an American is much more core to my identity than being an Epik customer, so I don;t think I could ever find much of any reason to be embarrassed by Epik because at the end of the day while they are my favorite registrar, an Epik customer isn't a core part of who I am.
I haven't really even so much as visited Wikipedia (until recently) in over a decade now. Rob quoted an apt article explaining why its a microcosm of craziness. When only mainstream media sources are considered relevant citations is it any wonder it carries many of the same bias'. In a way the fact that they Consider Rob/Epik notable enough to write such garbage about them is somewhat of an accomplishment. Though I can understand Rob's reaction want a fair and balanced article the fact is Wikipedia is not the place for fair or balanced articles about any person or topic.
Any idea how many times you've been cited by Wikipedia?
External link in .Club Wikipedia page
Additionally, TheDomains.com is referenced in a Wikipedia COUNTRY page.
Regardless if Wikipedia wants to allow TLDInvestors.com to be cited, I think considering <<at a certain point oversight can't be an excuse when clear precedent has been established>> TheDomains.com has been cited in an authoritative country Wikipedia page, that other articles written by the domains should be considered citeable in other relevant Wikipedia entries.
Separate names with a comma.