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]

I agree with you on the definition subject. However, it's no secret that your leanings are to the left and this broad definition is used constantly by the left to attack or try to delegitimize views outside of their agenda. Unfortunate? Yes. Misguided? Yes......Welcome to the new era.

I don't think my political leanings come into play regarding a definition of "hate speech". The goal is a definition that can be shared by people on both sides of a debate. Otherwise, no constructive debate is possible.

Some people want to ban "hate speech". Whether you agree or disagree, it is crucial to arrive at a common definition of "hate speech" in order to understand what would be banned and to debate whether such a ban should exist.

If people on the political right retreat from defining "hate speech", dismissing the whole issue as meaningless or arbitrary, then you will be ceding ground to people on the left who may get carried away with an excessively broad definition. Both sides of the debate need to engage in order to refine a definition of "hate speech" that allows for disagreement to be productive.

 

[Internet.Domains]

The goal is a definition that can be shared by people on both sides of a debate.

I certainly agree with that statement. Although, the reality is "hate speech" has many different meanings depending on political policy. For instance those that want citizens to be documented and legal are unfairly labeled as being racist. When they explain their position it is considered "hate speech" by those that disagree.

The definitions of legal citizenship and hate speech should not be in the same conversation. Yet sadly, we are in that unfortunate and unfair climate.

 

[Slanted]

For instance those that want citizens to be documented and legal are unfairly labeled as being racist.

Very few people would label that "racist". I also want immigrants to enter legally and be documented. It's what they themselves want.

Unfortunately, the discrepancy between the USA's economic appetite for cheap foreign labor and the USA's lack of access to legitimate modes of immigration creates a situation with lots of undocumented workers. If the USA would offer amnesty or extend the "dreamers" program, and especially if the USA would create a sensible policy for temporary work visas, then more people would be documented.

Wanting people to live legally is a goal shared by Right and Left, citizens and immigrants. Perhaps the notable difference these days is that many people on the Right want to deny even legal immigration to people from muslim or hispanic or african countries – what Trump inexcusably calls "shit-hole" countries, which happen to be non-white. So the emphasis is on excluding non-white people altogether, not on providing them a legal method to work and live in the USA.

When my great-grandmother left Norway as a teenager and migrated to North Dakota, the USA welcomed poor unskilled laborers like her, making it easy for her to live as a legal American citizen. But the USA has effectively chosen NOT to grant the same opportunities to others today. One of the reasons seems to be ethnicity. And for a country that effectively stole the western 1/3 of its territory from Mexico, there's something especially galling about wanting to build a wall on the southern border.

When they explain their position it is considered "hate speech" by those that disagree.

A lot depends on how they explain their position. I've seen some people refer to non-white immigrants as "dirty low-IQ" people. Or as disease-carrying "rapists" and "murderers". Or express dismay that the USA is becoming "less white".

If the USA weren't flouting its own rules and violating international law to block refugees at the border, denying them their right to enter and be documented with a hearing, forcing them instead to enter illegally, unnecessarily separating children from their parents, holding them in concentration camps, in cages, then there would be less of an outcry about racism. However, in the current climate, it's very hard to believe that these policies are intended simply to help immigrants receive proper documentation.

As a gringo with a U.S. passport, I can cross borders freely and live in any country south of the border – no questions asked – for 6 months at a time. But my Peruvian fiancee is not even allowed to visit the USA. It's a double standard that is hard to justify.

The definitions of legal citizenship and hate speech should not be in the same conversation. Yet sadly, we are in that unfortunate and unfair climate.

I don't think disagreement has broken down to that extent. We're able to disagree, and I haven't labeled what you've said as "hate speech".

Agree or disagree, perhaps you can recognize why – with kids in cages on the southern border thanks to a president that denigrates immigrants or bans them – people tend to see racism as a factor in what's going on today.

 

[Rob Monster]

With all the discussion about hate and disorder, I just wanted to share something random about light. There is a simple but short story of order that you can find in LIGHT. It comes in threes.

As everyone knows, the three primary colors are red, green and blue. Blended they make white light. When beamed through a prism you get the 7 colors of the rainbow.

The sun itself has 3 types of rays: light rays that you can see but you can’t feel, heat rays that you can feel but you can’t see, and actinic rays (like UV) that you can neither see nor feel and yet matter.

More here:

People can get mad at each other or they can acknowledge the distinct possibility that there is a Creator and he is using our differences for some unified purpose. I strongly believe that.

The pieces to the puzzle are all around us. The folks here who are stakeholders on the Internet play an important rule. Some of you are unsung heroes and don't even realize it yet. Your day is coming though.

 

[Cal2]

From Inc. This Morning

The 7 most ‘dangerous’ people on Facebook
Good morning,

Big news from a small, dark corner of Facebook on Thursday, as the social media giant announced it's banning seven “dangerous” accounts from the platform:

• Infowars, a far-right conspiracy news website known for claiming that the Sandy Hook Elementary School murders in 2012 either didn't occur or were a "false flag operation" by gun control activists.
• Alex Jones, the far-right conspiracy theorist who runs Infowars.
• Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, whose rhetoric has been labelled anti-Semitic and homophobic.
• Laura Loomer, a media personality who has been accused of peddling far-right conspiracy theories.
• Paul Nehlen, a former U.S. congressional candidate who has described himself as a "pro-White Christian" and was banned from Breitbart News in 2018 for "for ties to neo-Nazis and racist comments about Meghan Markle," according to The Washington Post.
• Paul Joseph Watson, a British conspiracy theorist who also works for Infowars.
• Milo Yiannopoulos, a British right-wing media personality and former Breitbart News editor.

Interestingly, Facebook apparently made the purging announcement before it actually banned at least some of the Facebook and Instagram accounts. That led to the odd situation in which Yiannopoulos, for example, was able to post about his ban from Instagram on his Instagram page.

They're all apparently gone now. Facebook also announced that any other Facebook or Instagram account that praises Infowars will reportedly see the post removed, and might face its own ban.

Some of this group’s views are easy to condemn. And frankly, I'm pulling punches on that last sentence. There's some despicable garbage in there. And yet, it gives me pause to see blanket bans. It slides right up to the edge of the slipperiest of slopes.

Nefarious people -- including but not limited to Russian intelligence -- sought to influence the 2016 U.S. elections, and incendiary messages on social media sites like Facebook were one of their key weapons. Clearly, it's important to combat these vile posts. As an advertiser, user, and investor, I wouldn't want to support companies that turned a blind eye to some of this stuff.

But a blanket ban, imposed by a private company and preventing people with unpopular views from posting on perhaps the most-traveled public forum of the digital media universe? And threatening anyone who shares their views with bans, too?

It's a tough, tough call. I don't claim to have the easy answer. Neither, apparently, do today’s tech giants and the U.S. government. Here’s Facebook’s own statement on the decision:

We've always banned individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence and hate, regardless of ideology. The process for evaluating potential violators is extensive and it is what led us to our decision to remove these accounts today.

I'll be thinking about this all day.

 

[Rob Monster]

From Inc. This Morning

The 7 most ‘dangerous’ people on Facebook
Good morning,

Big news from a small, dark corner of Facebook on Thursday, as the social media giant announced it's banning seven “dangerous” accounts from the platform:

• Infowars, a far-right conspiracy news website known for claiming that the Sandy Hook Elementary School murders in 2012 either didn't occur or were a "false flag operation" by gun control activists.
• Alex Jones, the far-right conspiracy theorist who runs Infowars.
• Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, whose rhetoric has been labelled anti-Semitic and homophobic.
• Laura Loomer, a media personality who has been accused of peddling far-right conspiracy theories.
• Paul Nehlen, a former U.S. congressional candidate who has described himself as a "pro-White Christian" and was banned from Breitbart News in 2018 for "for ties to neo-Nazis and racist comments about Meghan Markle," according to The Washington Post.
• Paul Joseph Watson, a British conspiracy theorist who also works for Infowars.
• Milo Yiannopoulos, a British right-wing media personality and former Breitbart News editor.

Interestingly, Facebook apparently made the purging announcement before it actually banned at least some of the Facebook and Instagram accounts. That led to the odd situation in which Yiannopoulos, for example, was able to post about his ban from Instagram on his Instagram page.

They're all apparently gone now. Facebook also announced that any other Facebook or Instagram account that praises Infowars will reportedly see the post removed, and might face its own ban.

Some of this group’s views are easy to condemn. And frankly, I'm pulling punches on that last sentence. There's some despicable garbage in there. And yet, it gives me pause to see blanket bans. It slides right up to the edge of the slipperiest of slopes.

Nefarious people -- including but not limited to Russian intelligence -- sought to influence the 2016 U.S. elections, and incendiary messages on social media sites like Facebook were one of their key weapons. Clearly, it's important to combat these vile posts. As an advertiser, user, and investor, I wouldn't want to support companies that turned a blind eye to some of this stuff.

But a blanket ban, imposed by a private company and preventing people with unpopular views from posting on perhaps the most-traveled public forum of the digital media universe? And threatening anyone who shares their views with bans, too?

It's a tough, tough call. I don't claim to have the easy answer. Neither, apparently, do today’s tech giants and the U.S. government. Here’s Facebook’s own statement on the decision:

We've always banned individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence and hate, regardless of ideology. The process for evaluating potential violators is extensive and it is what led us to our decision to remove these accounts today.

I'll be thinking about this all day.

I saw the same article -- I got an email blast from Inc Magazine. Perhaps you did as well. The mainstreaming of virtue-signaling by institutional censors has reached an all-time high. It is positively Orwellian. Anyone who cannot see that is either complicit, or is not paying attention.

As for these pundits, even though I don't agree with a lot of their content, I believe it is imperative that legally engaged persons not be systematically deplatformed. The consequences to democratic process will be hard to imagine as checks and balances are removed in the marketplace for ideas.

It should be rather obvious that there is a systemic bias. An outspoken Muslim like Ilhan Omar gets a free pass. I have no problem with Muslims speaking their truth. However, if that truth is conferred protected status compared to competing truths, we have a problem.

I don't personally identify with the Far Right or Alt-Right. I am a truthseeking Bible-believing Christian that has uncovered incontrovertible evidence of systematic deception by a coordinated network of deceivers whose agenda has been playing out over thousands of years. This is not theory. It is fact.

 

[Rob Monster]

From Inc. This Morning

The 7 most ‘dangerous’ people on Facebook
Good morning,

Big news from a small, dark corner of Facebook on Thursday, as the social media giant announced it's banning seven “dangerous” accounts from the platform:

• Infowars, a far-right conspiracy news website known for claiming that the Sandy Hook Elementary School murders in 2012 either didn't occur or were a "false flag operation" by gun control activists.
• Alex Jones, the far-right conspiracy theorist who runs Infowars.
• Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, whose rhetoric has been labelled anti-Semitic and homophobic.
• Laura Loomer, a media personality who has been accused of peddling far-right conspiracy theories.
• Paul Nehlen, a former U.S. congressional candidate who has described himself as a "pro-White Christian" and was banned from Breitbart News in 2018 for "for ties to neo-Nazis and racist comments about Meghan Markle," according to The Washington Post.
• Paul Joseph Watson, a British conspiracy theorist who also works for Infowars.
• Milo Yiannopoulos, a British right-wing media personality and former Breitbart News editor.

Interestingly, Facebook apparently made the purging announcement before it actually banned at least some of the Facebook and Instagram accounts. That led to the odd situation in which Yiannopoulos, for example, was able to post about his ban from Instagram on his Instagram page.

They're all apparently gone now. Facebook also announced that any other Facebook or Instagram account that praises Infowars will reportedly see the post removed, and might face its own ban.

Some of this group’s views are easy to condemn. And frankly, I'm pulling punches on that last sentence. There's some despicable garbage in there. And yet, it gives me pause to see blanket bans. It slides right up to the edge of the slipperiest of slopes.

Nefarious people -- including but not limited to Russian intelligence -- sought to influence the 2016 U.S. elections, and incendiary messages on social media sites like Facebook were one of their key weapons. Clearly, it's important to combat these vile posts. As an advertiser, user, and investor, I wouldn't want to support companies that turned a blind eye to some of this stuff.

But a blanket ban, imposed by a private company and preventing people with unpopular views from posting on perhaps the most-traveled public forum of the digital media universe? And threatening anyone who shares their views with bans, too?

It's a tough, tough call. I don't claim to have the easy answer. Neither, apparently, do today’s tech giants and the U.S. government. Here’s Facebook’s own statement on the decision:

We've always banned individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence and hate, regardless of ideology. The process for evaluating potential violators is extensive and it is what led us to our decision to remove these accounts today.

I'll be thinking about this all day.

Here is one pundit's impromptu reaction to the news:

The tolerance for competing views and alternate narratives is most certainly waning in the controlled media. There is a mindset of "presumptive close", i.e. that those who hold other views are actually not of sound mind. The irony here could not be thicker, and the stakes could not really be higher.

This week Facebooks bans all reference to Infowars. How much longer before any reference to scripture or Jesus Christ is banned as that is considered "hate speech". Of course that may be exactly what is coming so now is your opportunity to ask the important questions and seek out incontrovertible answers.

For a short while longer, thanks to the efforts of those who choose to stand in the gap, more and more pieces of the truth are out there with which one can establish strength of conviction about what one knows for sure. If the book-burners have their way, that process could become incredibly difficult.

I do hope that every single person who is a stakeholder in the free public Internet will take inventory of what is important to them and objectively evaluate the state of contentedness of citizens in parts of the world where Marxism has not only taken root but is openly prevailing.

Lastly, people should not be fooled by controlled opposition, possibly including 1 or more of these folks who were "banned". The main event is really about your own personal ability to discern truth. Even the most convincing truthseeker of today can be tomorrow's sellout-stooge. It happens.

 

[Rob Monster]

http://kenraggio.com/So, on the weekend before Ramadan, we have this news making the rounds:

https://twitter.com/MEMRIReports/status/1124229721431130112

https://www.foxnews.com/us/video-philadelphia-muslim-society-children

One of Epik's Arabic-fluent staff member confirmed the accuracy of the subtitles. This is Philadelphia where I grew up. I do completely know first hand that there are many lovely Muslims. And yet there is clear evidence that the death cult version of Islam is spreading.

Fortunately a free Internet does allow this nonsense to be exposed. It was alternative media that outed it and then network television apparently ran the story. The Covington Catholic hoax played out similarly. This is more evidence of why alternative media is important.

All that said, I do believe that Islam is absolutely part of God's plan. From a Biblical perspective, some theologians believe that the rise of radical Islam is the 4th horsemen of the Apocalypse -- the Green (aka Pale) horse. This is all based on writings from around 95 AD by the Apostle John.

For anyone who thinks the rise of biased censorship is just some passing fluke, it is way past time to wake up as your window for making an informed decision about the meaning of life is closing.

The generation that saw Israel back in its land in 1948 is the generation that will see all be fulfilled (see Matthew 24:34). A generation may be defined as 70-80 years (see Psalm 90). The clock might be ticking.

The Internet was prophesied by Daniel some 2600 years ago (see Daniel 12:4). It has done its job, allowing all of humanity the free will chance to either seek out the truth or keep up with the Kardashians.

Yes, I run Epik.com -- a registrar that helps people to buy and sell domains names. Yes, we are here to do business. Yet, the value of winning eternal souls is greater than earthly treasure. So, we'll do both!

 

[wormfood]

http://kenraggio.com/So, on the weekend before Ramadan, we have this news making the rounds:

https://twitter.com/MEMRIReports/status/1124229721431130112

https://www.foxnews.com/us/video-philadelphia-muslim-society-children

One of Epik's Arabic-fluent staff member confirmed the accuracy of the subtitles. This is Philadelphia where I grew up. I do completely know first hand that there are many lovely Muslims. And yet there is clear evidence that the death cult version of Islam is spreading.

Fortunately a free Internet does allow this nonsense to be exposed. It was alternative media that outed it and then network television apparently ran the story. The Covington Catholic hoax played out similarly. This is more evidence of why alternative media is important.

All that said, I do believe that Islam is absolutely part of God's plan. From a Biblical perspective, some theologians believe that the rise of radical Islam is the 4th horsemen of the Apocalypse -- the Green (aka Pale) horse. This is all based on writings from around 95 AD by the Apostle John.

Show attachment 118078

For anyone who thinks the rise of biased censorship is just some passing fluke, it is way past time to wake up as your window for making an informed decision about the meaning of life is closing.

The generation that saw Israel back in its land in 1948 is the generation that will see all be fulfilled (see Matthew 24:34). A generation may be defined as 70-80 years (see Psalm 90). The clock might be ticking.

The Internet was prophesied by Daniel some 2600 years ago (see Daniel 12:4). It has done its job, allowing all of humanity the free will chance to either seek out the truth or keep up with the Kardashians.

Yes, I run Epik.com -- a registrar that helps people to buy and sell domains names. Yes, we are here to do business. Yet, the value of winning eternal souls is greater than earthly treasure. So, we'll do both!

I think you might be called tactless for putting this in a thread that ultimately started because muslims were murdered.

if islam is part of god's plan and if you or someone agreed that radical islam is a prelude to the apocalypse, does that mean you wouldn't really mind if terrorism increases, as it means jesus will come again soon or something? why try to solve the problem of extremism if that's god's plan?

 

[Rob Monster]

I think you might be called tactless for putting this in a thread that ultimately started because muslims were murdered.

if islam is part of god's plan and if you or someone agreed that radical islam is a prelude to the apocalypse, does that mean you wouldn't really mind if terrorism increases, as it means jesus will come again soon or something? why try to solve the problem of extremism if that's god's plan?

I am saying that Satan is controlled opposition and that the Creator knows the end from the beginning. This means that prophecy will be fulfilled, not because I want it to be, but because, unlike Satan, God is not a liar. That being said, of course I don't look forward to the prospect of individual suffering. However, if there is some capacity to be a watchman, then I would be remiss not to convey an alert:

But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand. - Ezekiel 33:6

I would rather be 30 years too early than 1 day too late. Today, there are millions of Christians who are waiting for the first seal of the Tribulation to occur, not considering the very real possibility that the seals have been playing out over centuries. Many are anticipating a pre-tribulation rapture, something widely taught to Christians that, while certainly compelling, is easily refuted by scripture.

The four horsemen have been in everyone's faces. For example:

Berlin at the Brandenburg Gate:

Paris at the Arc de Triomphe:

In my travels I have found these and other apocalyptic icons are visible in many cities yet often overlooked. Perhaps the people responsible for putting them there were trying to tell us something.

 

[NYJimbo]

Facebook should have done this a long time ago. Funny how Jones and Farrakhan are now buddies since the ban, considering how Jones was bashing him all these years.

The seven banned are NOT the voice of conservatives, they are the outer edge of the worst of conservatives. Heck, two days ago Jones started making claims that the "Globalists" were weaponizing measles by sending migrants into the USA to infect anti-vaxxers so they would start vaxxing so the globalists/liberals/mkultra/"Jews"/etc could do their mind control.

Glad to see them gone.

 

[Slanted]

If 4 horses presage the Apocalypse, then why aren't these tourists running for their lives?

Once upon a time, automobiles had not been invented; and carriages drawn by 4 horses were a common sight.

Ditto chariots. Statues often commemorate battles or else symbolically present the regime's power in all its martial glory. Thus we see kings riding into the city in chariots. These aren't secret signs. In any case, 4 horsemen would imply 4 riders – not 4 horses.

 

[Slanted]

Glad to see them gone.

Are they "gone"? It seems to me that they will just be shifted from 1 platform (FaceBook) to another. They and their audience will end up in some forum that is more extreme, where poisonous ideas will circulate in greater concentration and seldom be subject to a rebuttal.

In the process, by dint of being banned, these jerks will gain prestige and a cult following of "rebels" who distrust the establishment.

Meanwhile, FaceBook sets a precedent that might be expanded to ban other voices – or even positive references to them. That is not a trend to be cheered.

 

[Internet.Domains]

In the process, by dint of being banned, these jerks will gain prestige and a cult following of "rebels" who distrust the establishment.

I agree with some of what you said, but labeling those who distrust the establishment as "rebels" is inaccurate.

In fact, most people in America at least, who oppose the establishment has very high praise for our Constitution and our democracy. Those who oppose the establishment are not "rebelling" against our government structure, they are in opposition of those who are trying to ruin our government structure.

Therefore, those who belong to the establishment would be more appropriately labeled as "rebels."

 

[RogueWriter]

This thread should be moved to the break room. There is a specific thread for politics, and a specific thread for religion. Am I wrong? That is where these non domain related issues belong.

Currently this thread is in "Free Resources / reviews"

 

[Slanted]

@RogueWriter

NamePros moderators can move this thread anywhere they think it fits.

This discussion has been, from the outset, about the mixture of 2 topics that are normally kept separate: Domains and Politics. Sometimes the thread has veered off in directions that leave the domain industry far behind. But at other times, the thread has focused on a domain registrar's responsibilities with respect to particular domains with controversial content. It's all over the place, and – given its origins in that mixture of politics + domains – that's no surprise.

 

[Slanted]

Therefore, those who belong to the establishment would be more appropriately labeled as "rebels."

Aren't "rebels" by definition the people who rebel against an establishment?

Just to be clear, there is nothing right or wrong about being part of the establishment or being a rebel. Sometimes people feel justified because they're in the majority or in power. Sometimes people get a romantic thrill from belonging to a minority that fights against the prevailing order – especially if it's a persecuted minority. That was my point about "rebels". But in both cases, people are only members of a group and striking a pose.

 

[Rob Monster]

@RogueWriter

NamePros moderators can move this thread anywhere they think it fits.

This discussion has been, from the outset, about the mixture of 2 topics that are normally kept separate: Domains and Politics. Sometimes the thread has veered off in directions that leave the domain industry far behind. But at other times, the thread has focused on a domain registrar's responsibilities with respect to particular domains with controversial content. It's all over the place, and – given its origins in that mixture of politics + domains – that's no surprise.

The thread started out as a bit of a public lynching of Epik, initiated by an uninformed Shane Cultra and amplified by certain members of a left-leaning lynch mob here at NamePros.

Although I initially did not engage with the thread, it finally became apparent by page 16 that either I was not going to run Epik, or the industry was going to get to know the real Rob Monster.

The thread has since evolved into a larger conversation about censorship, and the search for truth. The thread defies categorization. It has certainly increased Epik's brand awareness at NP and elsewhere.

Regrettably, the resulting controversy did cause Joseph Peterson to move on from Epik. He did great work for us, and will be missed. Despite our differences of opinion, I endorse him highly as a valued alumnus.

 

[frank-germany]

Regrettably, the resulting controversy did cause Joseph Peterson to move on from Epik. He did great work for us, and will be missed. Despite our differences of opinion, I endorse him highly as a valued alumnus.

yes that, of course, the result of this controversial thread

stupid me was thinking it was caused by
@Rob Monster
posting a lot of unbelievable nonsense

 

[Rob Monster]

yes that, of course, the result of this controversial thread

stupid me was thinking it was caused by
@Rob Monster
posting a lot of unbelievable nonsense

Hi Frank - Welcome back. You can believe whatever you want. This particular decision, initiated by Joseph, had more to do with the public "scandal" to use Joseph's term. Prior to the recent media attention, Joseph and I did talk openly about our respective views, including aspects of what you call "nonsense". This is probably why Joseph felt comfortable discussing his unmoderated observations in this thread.