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.

 

[Jv1999]

Did anyone actually note that noah's flood is the same as the saga of gilgamesh. And no doubt many, many biblical stories are taken or adapted from other Mesopotamian folk lore.

The Catholic and other Christian versions of the bible should and always have been metaphorical instead of literal. If ppl understood that, maybe fanatic religious groups wouldn't exist.

I mean it's obvious -- Jesus himself spoke in parables.... almost like He was trying to show that the teachings were all metaphors. Like some kind of satire.

 

[NameLlama]

What kind of person would assert that Gabby Giffords is a fraud and liar? What thhhhhehhhhh

 

[Rob Monster]

What kind of person would assert that Gabby Giffords is a fraud and liar? What thhhhhehhhhh

Who? Truthseekers, patriots, free speech enthusiasts, conspiracy analysts, and anyone who takes issue with events being used as pretext for advancing a gun control agenda.

I am not saying Loughner was not messed up. Based on his rap sheet, I am sure he was. The court concluded that it was not sufficient to keep him locked up pending trial. He needed to be doped up too.

I am also not saying that people did not die or get injured. I was simply connecting the familial relationship between NASA personnel in the news. It could all be a coincidence. Free speech let's folks look into it.

 

[Rob Monster]

Did anyone actually note that noah's flood is the same as the saga of gilgamesh. And no doubt many, many biblical stories are taken or adapted from other Mesopotamian folk lore.

The Catholic and other Christian versions of the bible should and always have been metaphorical instead of literal. If ppl understood that, maybe fanatic religious groups wouldn't exist.

I mean it's obvious -- Jesus himself spoke in parables.... almost like He was trying to show that the teachings were all metaphors. Like some kind of satire.

Chris White did a long segment debunking Zeitgeist, which was a big attempt to allegorize the Bible. I watched it years ago. It is still online and now backed up here:

 

[TCK]

Who? Truthseekers, patriots, free speech enthusiasts, conspiracy analysts, and anyone who takes issue with events being used as pretext for advancing a gun control agenda.

I am also not saying that people did not die or get injured. I was simply connecting the familial relationship between NASA personnel in the news. It could all be a coincidence. Free speech let's folks look into it.

"Free speech enthusiasts"? You are treating this like some kind of a sick hobby. Real lives are involved.

You invoking free speech is the height of hypocrisy. It is a joke, sad to say.

 

[NameLlama]

You just shared a video that is about her being a fraud and said she should probably be nominated for an Academy Award

 

[Rob Monster]

"Free speech enthusiasts"? You are treating this like some kind of a hobby. Real lives are involved.

You invoking free speech is the height of hypocrisy. It is a joke, sad to say.

Yup, tyranny is serious stuff. You got that right.

Take away free speech, right to bear arms, freedom of assembly and the right to due process, and you have yourself what most Americans won't want.

I found this handy chart on the website Jews for Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

Civil liberties are worth protecting. Free speech is really the critical one as it is the antidote to propaganda. Private ownership and democratic governance of domains are at the foundation.

 

[NameLlama]

Do you respect vehement Holocaust deniers as they are apparently "Truthseekers, patriots, free speech enthusiasts, conspiracy analysts"

 

[Rob Monster]

Do you respect vehement Holocaust deniers as they are apparently "Truthseekers, patriots, free speech enthusiasts, conspiracy analysts"

I have no problem with people investigating exactly who died and understanding patterns of who was sent to labor camps and who was murdered in cold blood.

I do have a problem who deny that there was a Holocaust or who attempt to romanticize Hitler as a nice guy who was misunderstood. I have very little doubt that he was a demoniac and a racist.

I have dear friends, who are Jewish, and who will absolutely attest to family members being murdered, not just in concentration camps but also in the field.

There is a new memorial on the Danube river in Budapest about one particular event in late1944, as WWII was ending, that was unquestionably psychotic. Folks who were lined up by Nazis at the water's edge and shot.

If you are asking if I believe that the Nazis methodically hunted the bloodline of the 12 tribes of Jacob, including the Tribe of Judah, to which Jesus belonged through Mary. Yes, I absolutely do believe that.

I have mentioned prior that one of my favorite Bible teachers is a Dutch woman, who lived through the Nazi concentration camps. Great teaching here:

The people who promote indiscriminate hate are not conservatives. They are nihilists.

 

[TCK]

Yup, tyranny is serious stuff. You got that right.

Take away free speech, right to bear arms, freedom of assembly and the right to due process, and you have yourself what most Americans won't want.

I found this handy chart on the website Jews for Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

Show attachment 115667

Civil liberties are worth protecting. Free speech is really the critical one as it is the antidote to propaganda. Private ownership and democratic governance of domains are at the foundation.

Rob,

I have given you the benefit of the doubt. I strongly want to believe in the humanity that is inside you. The reflection of our Creator.

In the course of this thread as well as private messages and phone call we shared, I believe I have a pretty good picture of where you are coming from. And I can say this with confidence...

You do not stand for the freedom of speech. You are, as you posted, a "freedom of speech enthusiast". You get a "high" from conspiracy theories. How do I know this? Because you do not discriminate. Everything is a conspiracy. You want to feel unique. Part of a small group that has discovered "the truth". You want to feel special.

No matter how many videos or graphics you post, it only reinforces my point.

I know that your public persona (or one you try to project) does not match the private one. So kid gloves are off. Unfortunately I will have to push you on anything you post. The truth is the truth. It can hurt, it can be uncomfortable, it can be embarrassing or humiliating, but in the end it is a good thing for everyone.

 

[Cal2]

I don't let other people interpret it for me. I let it interpret itself.

Agreed.

My saying for it became 'Let the Bible interpret the Bible', after reading Isaiah 1:18: Come, let us reason together.

 

[RogueWriter]

Jeeeze, this thread should be moved to the break room, or a 'Haters Room', since it has dissolved into nothing more than trying to bash Rob. Don't we have a religious thread in the break room where people can discuss religions, just like we have a political thread where people can discuss politics?

 

[TCK]

Jeeeze, this thread should be moved to the break room, or a 'Haters Room', since it has dissolved into nothing more than trying to bash Rob. Don't we have a religious thread in the break room where people can discuss religions, just like we have a political thread where people can discuss politics?

Let's be perfectly clear, this thread is not about bashing Rob as if he were some kind of a piñata. As far as I can tell, no one attacked him personally. This is a thread about conspiracy theories and other inappropriate posts that Rob made and stands by. I won't recite them, you will have to follow the thread from the beginning to get the context. As I stated before, I love Rob even though I fundamentally disagree with him on a number of fronts.

 

[MapleDots]

Let's be perfectly clear, this thread is not about bashing Rob as if he were some kind of a piñata. As far as I can tell, no one attacked him personally. This is a thread about conspiracy theories and other inappropriate posts that Rob made and stands by. I won't recite them, you will have to follow the thread from the beginning to get the context. As I stated before, I love Rob even though I fundamentally disagree with him on a number of fronts.

Actually this topic is was opened as a question, the one person I was hoping to hear from was...

@uglydork aka Richard Dynas

It was his strong twitter post that made me open the topic.

It was a very strong response to a comment by Rob Monster which it turn spiralled into a lashing of sorts against Epik.

Like I said before, if ethics were the only motivation then I would have to move out of GoDaddy because it's owner was shooting Elephants. That said I have no idea what the owner of the next company is up too and I cannot go moving a thousand domains every time a company owner does or says something I don't like.

I will base my decision on who the company handles my business and if it does as it promised when I signed up. I will leave the politics and innuendos to everyone else because I have yet to meet an angelic head of a corporation with no skeletons in his closet. Hell I probably have a few skeletons of my own so the least I can do is let someone else screw up once in a while without getting my knickers in a twist.

That said I seem to remember Richard screwing up a few times too.

So you see.... we all do it, the only difference is what we do after the screw up happens.

Hold your head high, say I screwed up, and promise to do better.

Could we ever ask more of anybody?

 

[TCK]

So you see.... we all do it, the only difference is what we do after the screw up happens.

Hold your head high, say I screwed up, and promise to do better.

Could we ever ask more of anybody?

Whenever someone does this in a genuine and honest way, my respect for that person shoots through the roof. I expect no less of myself.

Like I said before, if ethics were the only motivation then I would have to move out of GoDaddy because it's owner was shooting Elephants. That said I have no idea what the owner of the next company is up too and I cannot go moving a thousand domains every time a company owner does or says something I don't like.

Although that act was tasteless and a cruelty to incredible animals, my larger concern is the type of speech that can make a tragedy feel much worse for human beings. It is common for people closely associated to a tragic event to develop PTSD, depression, suicidal thoughts, etc. I know this too personally. It is cruel to them to dismiss the tragedy via unproven conspiracy theories or hate speech, etc.

 

[carob]

Like I said before, if ethics were the only motivation then I would have to move out of GoDaddy because it's owner was shooting Elephants. That said I have no idea what the owner of the next company is up too and I cannot go moving a thousand domains every time a company owner does or says something I don't like.

I will base my decision on who the company handles my business and if it does as it promised when I signed up. I will leave the politics and innuendos to everyone else because I have yet to meet an angelic head of a corporation with no skeletons in his closet.

As you say, this thread posed a question, namely what is going on with Epik and Rob Monster.

We have learned a lot since then, not least that there is not a lot of separation between the two.

If you look round the forum, you'll find people generally happy with Epik's domain services, delivered as advertised and delivered well. So does it matter if the CEO makes their religious and political views public?

Well we have learned that Rob Monster owns 80% of Epik, believes in and broadcasts many conspiracy theories and does not accept many scientific facts as facts. Someone who believes that disease and global warming are serious threats to the human race may not want to fund the activities of someone who denies global warming and is against vaccination and against the EU. In other words, at a moral level some may not want to fund what they see as the promotion of harm.

At a more practical level, we have learned from an employee in detail that Epik can and does delete domains on moral grounds and that it is Rob Monster who makes the decision and Epik's very broad ToS allow that - they do not specify that they support "all lawful free speech", despite any claims made here. So some might be concerned that Rob's beliefs, or associates, could cause him to take action against them or their domains on his personal moral grounds, and so might not want to run the risk of keeping valuable assets or personal data at Epik.

After all, this is a review section and has provided a lot of useful data for people to decide whether they want to trust Epik.

Epik's ToS for domains are at https://www.epik.com/registration.php

Please note that Epik's ToS specifically refer to "activities designed to encourage unlawful behavior by others, such as hate crimes" and "activities that are tortious, vulgar, obscene, invasive of the privacy of a third party, racially, ethnically, or otherwise objectionable".

Epik.com may also cancel the registration of a domain name, after thirty (30) days, if that name is being used, as determined by Epik.com in its sole discretion, in association with spam or morally objectionable activities. Morally objectionable activities will include, but not be limited to: activities designed to defame, embarrass, harm, abuse, threaten, slander or harass third parties; activities prohibited by the laws of the United States and/or foreign territories in which You conduct business; activities designed to encourage unlawful behavior by others, such as hate crimes, terrorism and child pornography; activities that are tortious, vulgar, obscene, invasive of the privacy of a third party, racially, ethnically, or otherwise objectionable; activities designed to impersonate the identity of a third party; and activities designed to harm or use unethically minors in any way. In the event Epik.com refuses a registration or deletes an existing registration during the first thirty (30) days after registration, You will receive a refund of any fees paid to Epik.com in connection with the registration either being canceled or refused. In the event Epik.com deletes the registration of a domain name being used in association with spam or morally objectionable activities, no refund will be issued.

 

[Slanted]

About this:

At a more practical level, we have learned from an employee in detail that Epik can and does delete domains on moral grounds and that it is Rob Monster who makes the decision and Epik's very broad ToS allow that

That's a misinterpretation, in my view. The employee referred to is me, and here is where I discussed the case in question:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/so...er-or-suspension.1107245/page-24#post-7170517

Yes, Rob and I both felt the website (which promoted rape) was immoral – disturbingly so. But the site's immorality, as such, was NOT the basis of Epik's decision. Rather, the website itself endorsed a crime. Moreover, endorsing that crime was not incidental to the site – some wayward paragraph in a blog post or stray comment by a user. Instead, endorsing that crime was the site's raison d'être. In other words, the site's explicit theme and purpose was 100% devoted to promoting a crime.

Illegality – that was the reason Rob gave when ordering the domain be deleted. And we were able to cite Epik's TOS to support that decision. I'm not white-washing this case whatsoever. In fact, for the sake of accuracy, I'm referring to the transcript of the chat where the decision was made. Morality was not even discussed because the nature of such a site is so obviously immoral. I did most of the talking, since I'm verbose and was using a laptop whereas Rob was succinct, apparently using a mobile phone. Direct quotes:

"If it is non-lawful content, it comes down"

"Right,down it goes"

"Delete it"​

I replied, "Deleted", to which Rob responded:

"Works. Rape is by definition illegal so easy one."​

Nothing meaningful has been left out of Rob's side of the discussion. Ordinarily I would not quote an internal Epik discussion, but I want this issue to be crystal clear. This is not true:

Epik can and does delete domains on moral grounds

Even if you believe that, it is certainly true that the case referenced above cannot be cited as evidence banning a domain on moral grounds. That is refuted by the actual transcript of the conversation between me and Rob where the decision was made.

This concern is unwarranted, based on my experience at Epik during the past 2 years:

So some might be concerned that Rob's beliefs, or associates, could cause him to take action against them or their domains on his personal moral grounds, and so might not want to run the risk of keeping valuable assets or personal data at Epik.

During the past 2 years, virtually all abuse cases or decisions about suspending a domain went through me. Whenever there was a judgment call, I had a 1-on-1 conversation with Rob. So I do know what I'm talking about based on real experience.

In principle and in practice, the criterion has been legality, not morality. Epik has erred on the side of legal due process, even when it is frustrating and time-consuming or when it causes some public attacks (e.g. pharmaceutical lobbyists like LegitScript).

 

[carob]

The employee referred to is me, and here is where I discussed the case in question:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/so...er-or-suspension.1107245/page-24#post-7170517

The discussion isn't just about one domain, it is about Epik's procedures and ToS and their implications.

You were asked this earlier:


"bmugford said: ↑
Has Epik, not even once in their history, suspended or banned a customer for behavior that while it might be legal was morally reprehensible or legal but against their TOS?"

To which you clearly replied

Yes, often.

at https://www.namepros.com/threads/so...er-or-suspension.1107245/page-24#post-7170517

Though now you say:

In principle and in practice, the criterion has been legality, not morality.

 

[Rob Monster]

Notre Dame is burning.

It took 200 years to build. At this rate, it will likely be not much by morning.

The media is not ignoring that this event falls in what is Holy week for Christians, based on Passover being this Friday, i.e. the day Jesus was crucified, Monday (today) would have been the day Jesus walked into Jerusalem, and overturned the tables of the moneychangers in the Temple.

There will be speculation and finger-pointing in the coming days, with some claiming that radical Muslims did it as revenge for Christchurch. On other hand, Macron has his hands full with 22 weeks of non-stop protests and now a mid-term European election in May that his party would struggle to win.

You can thank independent sites powered by free speech to investigate and discuss the why behind the what and to leave few stones unturned. Given the timing, and the likely substantial destruction, I don't believe this was an accidental fire and while Muslims likely will get blamed, I don't believe they did it.

 

[Slanted]

You were asked this earlier:

"bmugford said: ↑
Has Epik, not even once in their history, suspended or banned a customer for behavior that while it might be legal was morally reprehensible or legal but against their TOS?"

What I have said speaks for itself. Epik deleted a domain name based on content we could not even inspect (because the website had already been disabled by a separate hosting company). We did so based only on (1) a description of the content from the person who made the complaint plus (2) an inference about the topic of the site based on the domain name itself.

Rob believed the content was unlawful because it promoted illegal activity. But Epik is not a law enforcement agency, and Rob is not a judge in a courtroom. Rob's belief that the content was unlawful is not the same as an actual legal ruling. Though the reasoning was based on legality, what was actually invoked as the basis of the decision was Epik's TOS.

Rob's decision was made within about 1 minute, as I recall. That is very different from an actual determination of legality, which involves investigations, subpoenas, prosecutors, defense attorneys, juries, etc. No lawyer was consulted about the vanished website's legality or the registrant's right to continue registering the domain minus its website.

So, yes, Epik deleted a domain even

while it might be legal

And yes, the content

was morally reprehensible

And, yes, Epik did so because the content was

against their TOS

That's exactly what I was asked to provide an example of, and I did. Once again, immorality was not the basis of the decision. So, as I pointed out, your earlier claim about that was false.

Crucially, Epik did not wait for a district attorney to send a subpoena or a court order. Legal due process is often slow. In this case, Epik made a swift judgment call, taking a risk of being wrong about the content (which was invisible and unverifiable) or about its legality, and banned immoral content on the basis that it promoted illegal activity, which is prohibited by Epik's TOS.

Though now you say

As if I'm contradicting myself? No, I don't see any contradiction. I have explained the facts of the case twice now, even quoting the transcript of the decision-making process itself.

I'm sorry the facts don't support the interpretation you wish to make. But the facts are what I described.