What's going on with Epik and Rob Monster?

[MapleDots]

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.

 

[Slanted]

That is awful stuff. ... So what action will Epik take

Some moral questions are simple. That Gab post is reprehensible – utterly despicable and vile. Many of the comments underneath it applaud the idea of non-white people dying and use racist slurs. No decent person should hesitate to condemn that.

Are stabbings a real problem? That is a separate question that could be addressed without suggesting that immigrants are subhuman. Is the person advocating murder? No, they are hoping that criminals will kill each other. Nonetheless, the racist presentation is still morally wrong. It's a small step from (A) talking about immigrants as subhuman, blurring the line between immigrants and criminality itself, wishing for them the murder one another ... to (B) someone deciding he should murder them himself.

Speech is dangerous. It changes the way people think. But that works in both directions.

..................................................................................................

Some moral questions are complex. Like freedom of speech. Gab.com is a website with its own management. Epik is only the registrar where the domain's whois contact information and name server values are recorded. The website and all its files are hosted by some other company.

Who should police what is said on a website? There are various options:

• Website management
• Law enforcement agencies
• Web hosting companies
• Domain registrars
• Members of the general public who dislike what they see
• Payment processors like Paypal

In various circumstances, all of these entities get involved. For example, a registrar will often disrupt the name servers while investigating an alleged phishing scam, since time is of the essence to protect consumers.

Consider a forum you're more familiar with: NamePros. Sometimes an offensive post is published by someone at NamePros as well. What should happen, and who should take action? Ordinarily, the NamePros moderators intervene. Arguably, it makes the most sense for a website owner to take responsibility for their site's content. They or their staff would censor themselves according to their own policies or opinions or whims.

Some websites have strict or arbitrary practices about censorship and ban comments simply because they disagree with them. At the other extreme, there are sites like Gab that have very permissive policies – virtually no censorship at all. Wether Gab deliberately caters to racists or has simply attracted them because of its lenient free-speech posture, the site seems to be full of very offensive, openly racist content – sometimes with overtones of violence.

What to do about that? Who determines when offensive comments cross the line and need to be censored? Few people would suggest that a domain registrar like Dynadot needs to be engaged in moderating comments at NamePros just because NamePros.com is registered at Dynadot. Likewise, Epik's role as a registrar isn't to police the freely expressed content on forums, blogs, blog comments, business claims on small-business websites.

Speech can go too far in endorsing violence. All of us would agree with that. Epik banned a website that was advocating the rape of women. Rob didn't hesitate to do make that judgment call. The website's very existence was arguably devoted to a crime. But it's a more complicated judgment when the site is an open forum where anyone can join and say what they please.

Like any registrar, Epik relies on law enforcement agencies to police crimes. When Epik received a subpoena related to Gab, which occurred almost immediately after the domain transferred from GoDaddy to Epik, we complied fully with that subpoena. There wasn't much meaningful documentation to submit, since Epik doesn't host the site; and it had only spent perhaps a couple of weeks at Epik, after a long period at GoDaddy. But my point is this: If Gab management fails to regulate the most extreme rhetoric on their site, then some statements by Gab members may rise to the level of a criminal investigation. And at that point, registrars and web hosts comply fully with authorities. So any forum, including Gab, finds itself obliged to pay attention to some degree.

It isn't and should not be the responsibility of domain registrars to police or censor online content. That usurps the role of the website owner or law enforcement agencies. This doesn't mean that registrars don't act to suspend domains. Phishing, spam, malware distribution, child pornography, and other cases are obviously illegal or harmful. But registrars don't adjudicate trademark disputes. That's done via the UDRP or other policy. Despite strong public pressure for GoDaddy or Epik to de-platform websites like Gab (and others of a completely different nature), domain registrars are not the censors of the web. On the contrary, domain registrars enable content to be delivered as such. The responsibility of determining what content should be prohibited falls mainly to the website owner, citizens who indirectly vote for local laws, and law enforcement agencies that should exert proper vigilance.

It is inevitable that some forum will become the repository of extreme racist views. It's simply a consequence of censorship on more mainstream venues like Twitter and FaceBook, which ban much of the overt racism or violent rhetoric. Those people still exist and will go elsewhere. Even a website with the most noble free-speech goals would end up a haven for people with extreme viewpoints that are forbidden everywhere else. In saying that, I don't mean to imply that Gab is noble. But there is an undeniable connection between censorship on mainstream sites and concentrated extremism on fringe sites.

My own view is that violent rhetoric ought to appear on Facebook or Twitter – mainstream venues where a person's acquaintances will see it as a red flag, ideally talk the person out of their viewpoint or intended action, or even report them to the police. If instead those venues censor extreme opinions, then the same violent rhetoric will emerge in echo chambers where the members don't recognize it as being so extreme. In that environment, extreme opinions are amplified and exacerbated. The other members fail to notice a problem. They don't persuade the person to change their mind. They don't report to police. Marginalization of offensive views doesn't necessarily cause them to go away. Rather, it may radicalize them. At least Gab.com is an open forum visible to people who disagree and to law enforcement personnel. The alternative would be some corner of the dark web or some basement offline where nobody will notice violent rhetoric at all.

 

[mr-x]

On a side note, we have a section here on NP where intolerant discourse, vitriolic comments toward Muslims, LGBT etc are routine and perfectly tolerated. Pure hate speech. One member was actually justifying the crime and he wasn't crucified like Rob was. Playing the devil's advocate, Rob could point out that NP is not a good example of moderation, and perhaps not the best place to hold his trial.

The difference is that NP hosts just a very small bunch of Angry White Males whereas Gab is a large community, that resonates much louder across the Internet.

Now do antisemitism.

I'm fascinated by liberals penchant for punishing other people

 

[Rob Monster]

So what action will Epik take?

Here is where I net out on all of this as CEO of Epik and "public figure" whose opinions are apparently being watched more closely than I realized.

First, some absolute statements:

- Epik and I personally condemn violence and hate.

- Epik and I personally support lawful application of civil liberties.

- Epik and I personally believes that censorship should be tempered.

That being said, here is where the gray areas start:

- There are bad actors in any major forum. In most cases, their actions would be protected under US Law. If a site decides to stand for lawful free speech, it will have a higher concentration of content that hurts some people's feelings or runs counter to prescribed narratives.

- Specific to Gab, they have a ToS which they enforce. Problem posts are reported to [email protected] and dealt with there. In particular, threats of imminent targeted violence and DOXing are quickly removed, probably even faster than Twitter deals with them.

- When users violate ToS at sites like Gab and BitChute, they are removed. I have seen it many times, and am certain that it is happening. They suffer backlash in their communities which is why you have sites like 8Chan pop up, because 4Chan booted them. Incidentally, neither "Chan" is a client of Epik.

- In response to concentration of media, alternative news has filled the gap through a sort of citizen journalism. As a direct result, one great challenge is Fake News. Unfortunately, fake news cuts both ways, e.g. Covington Catholic. We are all being propagandized. As such, we must choose to discern.

- Specific to NZ, there was a horrific incident. That incident led to immediate changes in public policy. I questioned the censorship standard and the maniacal effort to enforce it globally. In that area I crossed a line and should not have done that. Epik is a utility and we should work to stay in our lane.

So what will Epik do? Here is what I propose, subject to input and refinement:

- We have [email protected]. If there is objectionable content where someone wants assistance with bringing it to the attention to site admins, please send it there, and we'll get it to the right people. We do this already but most people don't know about it.

- We will continue to cooperate with law enforcement. As free speech sites grow in number and grow in quantity, it is conceivable that more of them will come to Epik. The recent addition of BitMitigate and the growth of Anonymize as VPN provider make Epik the obvious choice as technology partner.

- The online personas called #Epik, #Anonymize and #BitMitigate will restrict their engagement to technical matters and not engage in commentary that could be construed as being inflammatory. Our function is to be a utility. We provide technology. It is battle-tested and open to all who engage lawfully.

- Epik will conduct a review of its client practices relative to its terms of service and determine what interventions are needed. It is conceivable that some clients will need to be dropped. This process will be orderly and will not be determined by coercion, brigading or other forms of mob rule.

- Epik will continue to be engaged in the dialog about the future of the internet. We will continue to advocate for lawful free speech and privacy, tempered with civility and accountability.

My hope is that a balanced approach to censorship and privacy will serve to both sustain and enlarge the internet name industry as we know it while preventing further acceleration of human tragedy such as the one that we saw happen in ChristChurch this month.

 

[DaveX]

Here is where I net out on all of this as CEO of Epik and "public figure" whose opinions are apparently being watched more closely than I realized.

First, some absolute statements:

- Epik and I personally condemn violence and hate.

- Epik and I personally support lawful application of civil liberties.

- Epik and I personally believes that censorship should be tempered.

That being said, here is where the gray areas start:

- There are bad actors in any major forum. In most cases, their actions would be protected under US Law. If a site decides to stand for lawful free speech, it will have a higher concentration of content that hurts some people's feelings or runs counter to prescribed narratives.

- Specific to Gab, they have a ToS which they enforce. Problem posts are reported to [email protected] and dealt with there. In particular, threats of imminent targeted violence and DOXing are quickly removed, probably even faster than Twitter deals with them.

- When users violate ToS at sites like Gab and BitChute, they are removed. I have seen it many times, and am certain that it is happening. They suffer backlash in their communities which is why you have sites like 8Chan pop up, because 4Chan booted them. Incidentally, neither "Chan" is a client of Epik.

- In response to concentration of media, alternative news has filled the gap through a sort of citizen journalism. As a direct result, one great challenge is Fake News. Unfortunately, fake news cuts both ways, e.g. Covington Catholic. We are all being propagandized. As such, we must choose to discern.

- Specific to NZ, there was a horrific incident. That incident led to immediate changes in public policy. I questioned the censorship standard and the maniacal effort to enforce it globally. In that area I crossed a line and should not have done that. Epik is a utility and we should work to stay in our lane.

So what will Epik do? Here is what I propose, subject to input and refinement:

- We have [email protected]. If there is objectionable content where someone wants assistance with bringing it to the attention to site admins, please send it there, and we'll get it to the right people. We do this already but most people don't know about it.

- We will continue to cooperate with law enforcement. As free speech sites grow in number and grow in quantity, it is conceivable that more of them will come to Epik. The recent addition of BitMitigate and the growth of Anonymize as VPN provider make Epik the obvious choice as technology partner.

- The online personas called #Epik, #Anonymize and #BitMitigate will restrict their engagement to technical matters and not engage in commentary that could be construed as being inflammatory. Our function is to be a utility. We provide technology. It is battle-tested and open to all who engage lawfully.

- Epik will conduct a review of its client practices relative to its terms of service and determine what interventions are needed. It is conceivable that some clients will need to be dropped. This process will be orderly and will not be determined by coercion, brigading or other forms of mob rule.

- Epik will continue to be engaged in the dialog about the future of the internet. We will continue to advocate for lawful free speech and privacy, tempered with civility and accountability.

My hope is that a balanced approach to censorship and privacy will serve to both sustain and enlarge the internet name industry as we know it while preventing further acceleration of human tragedy such as the one that we saw happen in ChristChurch this month.

Now you're talking my language as a businessman. I'm proud of you for spending valuable time to write such a detailed post.

Congratulations and thank you.

 

[Kate]

Some moral questions are complex. Like freedom of speech. Gab.com is a website with its own management. Epik is only the registrar where the domain's whois contact information and name server values are recorded. The website and all its files are hosted by some other company.

"Epik is only the registrar"

Come on, Epik is more than just the registrar.
Rob AKA Epik is an active participant on Gab. You said earlier Rob is not Epik but he makes no effort to dissociate the two on his profile.
One member here mentioned that Rob posted a lot more on Gab in a few months than he did on NP in 8 years. 1760 posts in 5 months is not bad, it can be described as active engagement in a forum.

Just the registrar, sure.

If indeed Epik was nothing more than just the registrar, the situation would be different. But people could still challenge you to enforce your own TOS... (I am wondering what it takes to be booted out from Epik, what the red line could be).

The truth is that Epik is deeply involved in Gab at present, and this is unavoidably going to alienate a lot of customers. Not just Jews or Muslims. Mixing religion and (fringe) politics with business: never good.

Can you supply an example of "pure hate speech" on NamePros as you suggested in your comment?

It's easy to find. But then this will derail this thread. If you don't see what I mean and you don't have a problem with the hate speech in question, then presumably you don't have any problem with the issue at hand either.

 

[Rob Monster]

Now you're talking my language as a businessman. I'm proud of you for spending valuable time to write such a detailed post.

Congratulations and thank you.

Thanks.

On the business side, our capital structure and governance is also subject to review. I own about 80% of the voting shares of the company. There is one other board director, Braden Pollock, who leans left of center. We have recently added some investors that lean right of center.

We plan to fund innovation and notably AI-related projects applied to the Internet. We have a long history of rapid innovation and have done it with a relatively modest based of domains under management and relatively little outside capital. The core technical team is strong and getting stronger.

Our recent success in defending massive denial of service attacks involving more than 10 million IP addresses, including sophisticated "layer 7" attacks has not gone unnoticed by some major players active in the areas of DDoS Mitigation, Anycast DNS and Content Delivery Networking.

Practically-speaking, this means:

1. We will significantly increase our emphasis on technology, delivered as white label and otherwise, through channel partners. Our best-at is technology, and we will leverage that. The CDN market alone is $7 billion now, projected to grow to $23 billion by 2023. We can help our clients get a big piece of that upside.

2. We will continue to be on the lookout for opportunity to accelerate growth through acquisition through cash-efficient transactions that add some combination (1) leadership, (2) technology and (3) locality. The BItMitigate acquisition is a very good example of what this looks like when it works.

3. We will be open to having new investors and/or new board directors come into Epik, in the hope that they will bring fresh ideas and new perspectives, but who also want to build a significant and resilient enterprise that is capable of serving mainstream markets on a global scale.

This too is subject to refinement but I think we are solid on the above 3 points.

 

[DaveX]

Thanks.

On the business side, our capital structure and governance is also subject to review. I own about 80% of the voting shares of the company. There is one other board director, Braden Pollock, who leans left of center. We have recently added some investors that lean right of center.

We plan to fund innovation and notably AI-related projects applied to the Internet. We have a long history of rapid innovation and have done it with a relatively modest based of domains under management and relatively little outside capital. The core technical team is strong and getting stronger.

Our recent success in defending massive denial of service attacks involving more than 10 million IP addresses, including sophisticated "layer 7" attacks has not gone unnoticed by some major players active in the areas of DDoS Mitigation, Anycast DNS and Content Delivery Networking.

Practically-speaking, this means:

1. We will significantly increase our emphasis on technology, delivered as white label and otherwise, through channel partners. Our best-at is technology, and we will leverage that. The CDN market alone is $7 billion now, projected to grow to $23 billion by 2023. We can help our clients get a big piece of that upside.

2. We will continue to be on the lookout for opportunity to accelerate growth through acquisition through cash-efficient transactions that add some combination (1) leadership, (2) technology and (3) locality. The BItMitigate acquisition is a very good example of what this looks like when it works.

3. We will be open to having new investors and/or new board directors come into Epik, in the hope that they will bring fresh ideas and new perspectives, but who also want to build a significant and resilient enterprise that is capable of serving mainstream markets on a global scale.

This too is subject to refinement but I think we are solid on the above 3 points.

Wow! That's terrific!

I sincery look forward to seeing Epiks continued innovation and growth.

P.S. I always liked you and your business savvy. I followed your experience with DT and admire your tenacity. Thanks for hanging in there.

 

[Slanted]

Just the registrar, sure.

You've taken my comment out of context. Speaking about an online forum, there are various entities that are in its supply chain or which can otherwise apply pressure to censor content:

• web host
• registrar
• TLD registry
• ICANN

Also:

• website owner
• board of directors (if any)
• moderators / staff
• forum members

Also:

• law enforcement agencies
• non-members angry with member content
• payment processors (e.g. Paypal)

The question was: Which entity should police content written by Gab members? Or which entity should determine whether Gab itself should cease to exist?

One person suggested that Epik has the primary responsibility for policing content written on Gab.com by members of that forum. But I made the point that nobody expects Dynadot (NamePros's registrar) to moderate these posts.

In this context, saying that Epik is only involved with Gab as its registrar is an objective fact. That is Epik's role in Gab's supply chain. And it is based on that role that some people want Epik to censor individual Gab posts or to eject Gab completely.

 

[xynames]

The content perpetuated on gab is not content that I could ever be remotely associated with.

The reason I can't swallow Rob Monster's claim that the "only" reason he is allowing Gab to flourish on Epik is due to his neutral championing of free speech, is partly because of some of his posts on Gab, such as have been pointed out here

That same month, when one Gab user accused Monster of talking like a “RAT KIKE,” he responded that he is “not a ‘kike’ nor governed by one. ” When another person on Gab said he was pleased to know the site was hosted by a guy who wouldn’t “kowtow to globalists” — a term commonly used as an anti-Semitic dog whistle — Monster responded, “Indeed.” Monster assured another Gab user who was worried about Epik having two Jewish board members that “having a Jewish person on Epik’s board may be somewhat helping with keeping certain forces at bay.”

and then also because of his monstrous post about the New Zealand massacre

There is no IF about it. You gotta call it for what it is. @Rob Monster did post on Twitter that the New Zealand mosque massacre is a hoax.

It's been well recorded here. Just go back in the posts.

as well as due to his hollow apology about his NZ post:

Apologies to anyone who I offended personally with my remarks in this thread.

and then somewhat doubling down after the hollow apology with statements to the effect of "who knows what happened there"

these factors COMBINED seem to show that Rob is not merely a detached ISP for Gab, but an active participant, and perhaps even a sympathizer.

If Rob were say, some fat cat capitalist with a cigar, hosting whatever content just for the almighty buck, tongues might wag, but at worst, we could say that the guy doesn't care one way or another about anything.

But the evidence I see, tends to establish that Rob chose this particular group Gab for a reason, and supports them and their thinking, at least on some level.

 

[Bravo Mod Team]

Hello,

The topic regarding NamePros moderation has been moved to its own thread:

• https://www.namepros.com/threads/moderation-on-namepros.1129814/

We hope that helps.

 

[NameLlama]

In the news
https://www.npr.org/2019/03/27/7072...ism-and-separatism-content-from-its-platforms

 

[JB Lions]

You've taken my comment out of context. Speaking about an online forum, there are various entities that are in its supply chain or which can otherwise apply pressure to censor content:

• web host
• registrar
• TLD registry
• ICANN

Also:

• website owner
• board of directors (if any)
• moderators / staff
• forum members

Also:

• law enforcement agencies
• non-members angry with member content
• payment processors (e.g. Paypal)

The question was: Which entity should police content written by Gab members? Or which entity should determine whether Gab itself should cease to exist?

One person suggested that Epik has the primary responsibility for policing content written on Gab.com by members of that forum. But I made the point that nobody expects Dynadot (NamePros's registrar) to moderate these posts.

In this context, saying that Epik is only involved with Gab as its registrar is an objective fact. That is Epik's role in Gab's supply chain. And it is based on that role that some people want Epik to censor individual Gab posts or to eject Gab completely.

I thought they were a little more involved than just a registrar? Not sure about now but I see a screenshot talking about the Cryin' Nazi saying "He is 1st on my list to send packing if he is not able to line up with the Gab ToS"

or another screenshot of Rob saying he was providing air cover for Gab.........stood in the gap.....

https://twitter.com/MollyOShah/status/1064559963744419840

Seems a bit involved, again, not sure about now.

 

[johnn]

This thread will go no where.
What do you expect from him? He is a Monster.
Politic/Religion discussion will never ended.
Let spend time to make money rather wasting with this thread. YOU WILL GET NO WHERE.

 

[waterman]

New account but not new player.

The best thing about business is the people behind the businesses. It's how and why deals happen, and how and why innovation happens. Epik is from Rob (and company) and Rob has character.

Now if Epik is so big now that Entrepreneur Rob Monster can't be so casual about sharing his own opinions... that's for Epik and Rob to work out. Profits, consumer sentiment, industry relationships... they are all the "business" that influences those decisions.

But congrats (and thanks!) to Rob for standing up for free speech, hosting (whomever needed protection) when the mob tried to violate what should be an inalienable right : expression of opinion.

It is my opinion (this is a forum of opinions?) that each person yelling that so-and-so's opinions are not valid, and should not be "allowed" to be expressed, is a threat to humanity. That's right... if you're demanding censorship of opinions, you are a threat to humanity.. except in a few rare cases.

Luckily, mob reactions usually reflect personal emotions and / or ignorance, and those aren't permanent. A free society leaves room and time (aka tolerance) to allow people to learn the hard way (through debate and discussion, pondering the various opinions and perspectives of others).

You are not supposed to be free to mob and hang someone without a just pause and consideration of what you may not "see" from your perspective (there should be a trial, a jury of peers, etc), even if the expression is something you truly hate. Even if it emotionally harms you, unfortunately. YOU are not the standard.

Yes, in some cases, harm can come from unbridled speech inappropriately put forth... yelling fie in a crowded theater is the classic example (it's illegal). IN THOSE CASES, careful consideration may impose upon the right to express one's opinions.

Are you the arbiter of that? Is your opinion so sacrosanct that you get to decide who should be censored, and who should not?

No. And neither is Rob Monster. He, at least, knows that. Which is probably why he errs on the side of freedom, when it is within his power.

ALLOWING free speech is a noble act, even if that speech is seen as harmful... unless it can fairly and justly be decided that it is harmful (like yelling fire in a crowded theater).

The only thing we are entitled to do is debate whether or not we believe someone's expressions are that harmful (or not), after which we can work to persuade our (elected) authorities to enforce responsible controls. In other words, WE are (also) entitled to express our (however emotional) opinions, in public... even if others HATE our views.

At least for now we are entitled to do that... in America at least, on Gab if everyone else bullies us off the public platforms.

Thanks you Rob for your efforts, and especially the careful consideration you put into your work. I know that few other leaders have that much courage.

 

[johnn]

@waterman - You must be Epik employee or RM son?
Just registered so you can post to defend RM.

Your tone and writing style looks very much like RM to me. Twin?

 

[Rob Monster]

I thought they were a little more involved than just a registrar? Not sure about now but I see a screenshot talking about the Cryin' Nazi saying "He is 1st on my list to send packing if he is not able to line up with the Gab ToS"

or another screenshot of Rob saying he was providing air cover for Gab.........stood in the gap.....

https://twitter.com/MollyOShah/status/1064559963744419840

Seems a bit involved, again, not sure about now.

A few thoughts here:

- When Gab was on the cusp of being done, I did apply some diplomacy skills to buy them time. This is where I engaged with ANTIFA, SPLC, HuffPo, WaPo, NYT, WSJ. In the end they lit me up but I certainly did my best to make the case that Gab has some supervision and should be given a chance to prove it.

- In retrospect, my sincere efforts to find compromise with the aforementioned groups was not that successful. There might have been some detente, but they vilified me instead. Some of the people on this blog believe some of what has been written about me when much of it is simply not true.

- As for Gab, my involvement there is almost nil now. I have not spoken to them in months. The last contact was actually with their attorney. We simply don't talk. They did register Dissenter.com with us and are happy with us, but we are just a supplier to them now and that's fine by me.

- As for Chris "Crying Nazi" Cantwell, it is no secret that I tried to engage him to drop his shock jock routine. I was not successful there either. And in the end, he kept testing the boundaries until Andrew Torba booted him earlier this month. It was not me who sent him packing though. I was never an admin there.

- As for ANTIFA, they never met with me. I am still hoping they will meet someday. We would happily be their registrar too. I realize some doubt that, but I am serious. We specialize in resiliency, and can manage the controversy. We will however enforce the law. We don't protect criminals.

Hope that helps.

 

[Slanted]

You said earlier Rob is not Epik but he makes no effort to dissociate the two on his profile.

Rob has been the owner and CEO of Epik for many years. Unlike other CEOs, Rob actively engages with individual customers, answering support tickets, bailing them out with domain-backed loans, even editing their DNS records over the phone. And he's a workaholic (I mean that in a good way) who is always "ON". Except when Rob's asleep, there is almost no moment when he might not respond to someone who has a question for Epik.

So, you're right: Rob hasn't been in the habit of distinguishing between Epik and himself as an individual 100% of the time. In public, he has just said what he thinks and sometimes mentioned his company and its services, which are often directed toward issues he cares about – like privacy or censorship.

For many years, this identification of Rob = Epik has helped the brand. Many customers at Epik choose the company primarily because of positive experiences they've had with Rob. Indeed, many in this thread have said so. Rob never built a wall between Epik and his individual identity.

Blurring the lines between Rob / Epik caused a problem finally. Please give Rob a chance to adjust policies and habits. It's only fair. Within the past week, Rob has made a number of changes:

• Rob closed his individual Twitter account. That's based on the risk of his individual opinions being mistaken for Epik positions (which caused the recent scandal).
• Epik social media accounts at Twitter and Facebook are now made via a designated Epik employee in all cases and not by Rob directly, as sometimes was the case. This provides a filter and allows for the post to reflect more team consensus – which is the real Epik. It also provides an opportunity for basic editing and fact-checking.
• Within this thread, I suggested that Rob should change the Gab username from "Epik" to something reflecting him as an individual. And his comment today suggests that will happen.
• Here at NamePros, Rob changed his avatar / image so that it no longer reflects the Epik logo. People still recognize Rob as Epik's CEO. But this emphasizes that posts by Rob about religion or politics are not Epik positions as such.

Some CEOs delegate public comments to underlings as much as possible. But Rob has been in the habit of speaking directly to people in forums, emails, and social media. That can backfire. In some cases, it helps to have an extra layer of teamwork in a company's public statements on blogs, in Twitter or Facebook, or forums. If there is no such layering, then there may not be any consensus within the organization. And then arguably it makes sense to emphasize that each person is speaking as an individual, except when emphasizing that they are speaking about official policy. That's the case here in NamePros with Rob's posts.

Rob may be the CEO of a company, but he deserves some right to have his own opinions and express them as an individual. Nobody needs to agree with his opinions. But we should acknowledge that Rob says things as Rob. He isn't always a mouthpiece of Epik's official positions 24/7. If Rob says he enjoyed the last movie he saw, nobody will interpret that film review as a statement by Epik. By the same token, if Rob expresses a political view using the "Epik" username, it doesn't necessarily reflect Epik's position.

Rob began engaging with people at Gab.com in connection with the domain being transferred to Epik from GoDaddy, which refused to service it any longer in response to public pressure after a crime was committed by 1 of Gab’s members. So when Rob began commenting on Gab, he would have been representing Epik. To the extent that Rob began engaging with Gab members about politics, that was Rob acting as a private citizen, expressing his personal opinions. It’s easy to understand why, under the circumstances, the username began as “Epik” and how Rob might have continued using it in a personal capacity without realizing that it would be helpful to create a separate personal account.

In the post above, Rob outlined a number of proposed changes in Epik’s practices. I think he deserves some credit for that. Among other things:

The online personas called #Epik, #Anonymize and #BitMitigate will restrict their engagement to technical matters and not engage in commentary that could be construed as being inflammatory.

So Epik usernames will be limited to official Epik business. That's progress. If I understand that correctly, then Rob’s personal posts on Gab would henceforward be made under a username not bearing the Epik brand.

This won’t address all issues. But it cannot be said that Rob “makes no effort to dissociate” between Epik and Rob Monster. He is making that effort.

For years, Rob relied on people to understand that his comments reflect individual opinions (like christianity) and to judge Epik as Epik, based on the quality of its services. Evidently, the general public gets Rob and Epik mixed up sometimes. To some extent, I get it. But when this scandal arose, some people were calling for a boycott of Epik based on a political opinion Rob expressed in his own personal Twitter account. And I know the general public is smart enough to realize there is a distinction between Rob and Epik in such a situation. I agree that more differentiation was needed. Rob and Epik are working on that.

 

[xynames]

wasterman: Out of nowhere...a Rob supporter soon after the covers were pulled.

 

[waterman]

@waterman - You must be Epik employee or RM son?
Just registered so you can post to defend RM.

Your tone and writing style looks very much like RM to me. Twin?

Nope sorry to disappoint, but I'd take it as a compliment my writing is similar to smart people. I've been around a while... since 2007. Never had my patience for the forums, though... and especially the way NP is sometimes tyrannically managed IME. Not my game to hang around in forums anyway.

I registered because I'm annoyed at something else in domaining... and then I saw the discussion under "new posts". I already knew of the issue (of course).

Question for you, though... why assume I'm an employee or relative? Someone who disagrees with your world view must be part of a conspiracy? I hope that's not how you think.. but of course you're free to be that way in your own life.

 

[waterman]

wasterman: Out of nowhere...a Rob supporter soon after the covers were pulled.

No idea what this means, but I have been told there is another "waterman" somewhere else. Sorry if it's a namespace conflict... it's a freakin' forum handle. I coulda picked anything.

Enough about me, lol. Just another domainer.