You see what the issue is. Supposedly we are talking about free speech, but Rob seems to only post propaganda from one (very extreme) side.
The issue has never been lost on me. Forgive me for groaning when someone else points to the sun and says, "See, Joseph, that's the sun." Yes, thanks, I'm aware.
I want registrars to be neutral, whereas Epik is now perceived as ideological. That perception is based partly on (A) a few controversial domains that Epik has attracted; and (B) because of Rob's personal views and statements.
Controversial domains came to Epik as a result of de-platforming elsewhere. Had Epik received them passively, rather than actively inviting them, then the public perception would be slightly different โ but only slightly. There would still be people calling Rob a Nazi for allowing Gab.com to exist. And people would still write to friendly Epik support staff to condemn my coworkers for "supporting violence", demanding that Epik delete domains to please them or else we're greedy mercenaries who only care about making money โ from a profit margin of pennies on an $8.49 .COM, it should be noted.
De-platforming is a real problem. Such a problem, in fact, that someone in this industry needed to stand up to it on ethical grounds. In a perfect world, maybe that person would have been completely neutral politically. But in the real world, the people who are most concerned about censorship and de-platforming tend to be the people most at risk of it. And these days that seems to apply mainly to the political far right. So it should come as no surprise that the person who stepped forward to push back against censorship in the Gab.com case was somewhere on the political right, as Rob is.
The proximity of Rob's views to Gab's views has made it difficult for people to separate the abstract issue from the concrete politics. If someone on the left had "revived" Gab.com by accepting the domain transfer, then the distinction might be more clear. Unfortunately, if there are any liberal registrar CEOs, they were either oblivious to the case or unconcerned about the principle of registrar neutrality or else lacked the guts to take the heat. Perhaps some overseas registrar would have taken Gab.com in exchange for a steep fee. But the person who, in fact, stood up to de-platforming in this case was Rob. Arguably Rob is a flawed hero, or (to phrase it differently) an imperfect advocate, given his own controversial views. But the fact is, Rob acted on conviction, on principle.
That would have been all well and good. But the way Rob invited sites to Epik is confusing. Either it is misconstrued or else there are overlapping motives. The controversial sites that transferred their domains to Epik following Gab.com were obviously going to be sites at risk of de-platforming. Given the cultural situation in which the USA finds itself these days, the sites at risk are (unsurprisingly) right-wing. Did Rob invite them because he is sympathetic to their content or because they were at risk of de-platforming? Certainly the latter, but maybe both to some degree. To Rob, as a christian who believes anybody can be redeemed, even right-wing content that is more hateful than his own opinions looks like something to be engaged and softened. Even if Rob were not a christian, there is often some sympathy between people on the right and people on the alt right because they understand one another better than most people on the left will.
Add to this (1) Rob's personal involvement inside Gab, which mixed his personal views with Epik services related to censorship or privacy; and (2) Rob's promotion of Gab as part of a free-speech cause (which is no longer the action of a neutral registrar); and (3) the controversial political views in Rob's personal statements on Twitter or in Gab or elsewhere โ no kidding, it has become a very confusing tangle.
The original principled decision was to accept a domain transfer in the normal way despite pressure from some segment of the public to banish the domain through tactics that subvert due process. And beyond that: A policy not ban domains based on personal beliefs, so long as the content is a legal part of civic debate in a society that has prided itself on free speech.
Free speech is no longer understood or prized. It's a delicate concept, easily contaminated by association with some controversial statement that free speech allows. Given the public's lack of sympathy to free speech as a value, maybe the only way to persuade people that it matters is in the sterile laboratory environment of a philosophy classroom. But it matters in the real world. And principles do touch real people with real opinions. Those who are most concerned about censorship aren't necessarily the people with the most center-of-the-road opinions. We shouldn't be shocked by that. But there is still an important principle at stake. And Rob was right to identify it and stand up for it when nobody else would.
I agree with Rob's original decision, which was based on registrar neutrality. To the extent that Epik has been politicized by actions or statements since then, or has been perceived to be, that's to be lamented.
Where is the motive for inserting fake video into a live stream . . . . . unless. . . 
