Talk:Epik

Reverted edit and NPOV discussion

@Black Kite You changed to "right-wing domain registrar." Where does the source support this?

The source: https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a37754550/epik-hack-anonymous-right-wing-hate-groups/ "Epik, purveyor of online services to the extreme right" means the userbase consists of right-wingers, not the domain registrar.

93.45.229.98 (talk) 07:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

To be clearer: if an organization is right-wing it assumes that there is some restriction that prevents those of other orientations from using services; however, the service is public - anyone can register a TLD. It is clear that the "extreme right" in the sentence is the userbase and not the domain name registrar itself. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 08:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I've removed it. There are other sources for "right-wing" but it's actually spurious anyway as the lead sentences make it very clear what Epik actually are. Black Kite (talk) 10:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay @Black Kite, if there are no objections you can proceed to remove the POV template. Greetings and good work. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 10:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

The IP's argument is spurious. This sets an impossible standard which will only insult the reader's intelligence. A service which overwhelmingly caters to right-wing users, promotes those users above and beyond any other group, and justifies this via the owner's far-right ideology, is properly described as a "right-wing company". Realistically, there is no way for a company to be any more right-wing than this. Being public has nothing to do with anything. It's absurd to pretend it's some accident that far-right users flock to this platform. Grayfell (talk) 02:47, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Is there any reliable source saying the company "overwhelmingly caters to right-wing users, promotes those users above and beyond any other group, and justifies this via the owner's far-right ideology"? The owner is a theist, and I have no issue with considering a theist right-wing and an atheist left-wing. But the company does not only provide services to the right-wing. It's a web hosting company and people from both wings can use its service. Matt Smith (talk) 03:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, many sources already in the article support this. Him being a theist has very little to do with his far-right views, and his self-described religious views are at best tangentially related to his company's ideology. People from "both sides" can theoretically use this service, but they generally don't. Very few moderates, leftists, liberals, mainstream conservatives etc. are interested being associated with neo-Nazis, serial harassers, and various other far-right domestic terrorists. Per this article, the only notable users outside of the far-right are drug counterfeiters. This is a recurring pattern with alt-tech. They loudly proclaim that "anyone can use" their services, but the numbers do not reflect this supposed egalitarianism, and neither do reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 05:40, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I couldn't find in the article that the company promotes those users above and beyond any other group. But if you're referring to Rob Monster's personal view, I think that does not necessarily define the company's nature. It won't be too late to conclude the company's nature when one day it starts to reject left-wing customers. Matt Smith (talk) 06:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

@Grayfell I don't think the article in the current version somehow hides what Epik.com does, and both speeches appear to be highly polemical in nature.

My points were: 1. The customers and the domain name registrar are two different things, no source states "epik.com is a right-wing domain registrar" - all sources refer to customers; 2. the company's services are objectively non-discriminatory (any political orientation can use the service); 3. We all agree on "known for providing services to alt-tech websites that host far-right, neo-Nazi and other extremist material."

Btw, it is worth noting that Epik.com is utilized by a diverse range of users for domain flipping and domain parking, as evidenced by the significant number of TDL investors on NamePros. Notably, one may observe that the domain mutualism.org, helpukrainetoday.com, etc. are registered on Epik.com.

Epik's marketing strategy is quite mainstream, as exemplified by their motto The Swiss Bank Of Domains and their promotional videos (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGSdjZP1y0A) etc., etc. Therefore, I believe it is unlikely that Epik's primary source of revenue is derived from providing services exclusively to the right or the far-right. Most of the TLDs on the Epik Domain Marketplace are not even about political issues.

So Grayfell, I think your efforts would be better devoted to pointing out that other companies also do the same – like Godaddy who provides services to the CasaPound neo-fascists (https://whois.domaintools.com/casapounditalia.org)... or the double standard on LBRY's entry where it simply says "supports free speech." (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/14/odysee-video-platform-nazi-content-not-grounds-for-removal). 93.45.229.98 (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

p.s. I noticed among other things that gab.com is registered with Cloudflare, 8kun.top is registered with eranet.com, and dailystormer.in is registered with Endurance Digital (an Indian company).

Ref.

https://www.whois.com/whois/dailystormer.in

https://www.whois.com/whois/gab.com see also https://www.fastcompany.com/90312063/how-cloudflare-straddles-its-role-as-privacy-champion-and-hate-speech-enabler

https://www.whois.com/whois/8kun.top 93.45.229.98 (talk) 14:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

All of this is original research and whataboutism. The current article describes Epik based on reliable, independent sources. Your claim that Epik's "marketing strategy" is mainstream is contradicted by those sources, and is also a distraction. Obviously, Wikipedia isn't a platform for marketing. As I already said, alt-tech company's love to loudly proclaim that anyone can use them, but the reason Epik is notable enough to even have a Wikipedia article is because it is a far-right company. The place to discuss other services is on those other service's talk pages, not here. If you have a usable source for the bit about domain-flipping, go ahead and propose it, but I don't expect reliable sources to be as impressed by the ideological purity of digital rent-seeking as you appear to be. Grayfell (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that we move on. As you informatively mentioned, the current article describes Epik based on reliable, independent sources. Because those sources do not explicitly say that the company itself is a right-wing or far-right company, we can consider this topic resolved. As an additional information, here is a quote from WP:NOR: "Take care not to go beyond what the sources express or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources." Matt Smith (talk) 03:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@Grayfell @Matt Smith

The fact is that the most controversial sites - gab.com, 8kun.top (8chan), and dailystormer.in - are no longer Epik users (sources support this), and that is quite relevant. It is also good to remember that the neo-Nazi site Dailystormer was previously registered on Go Daddy. It is also clear in the Wikipedia article that BitMitigate kicked off dailystormer after Epik acquired BitMitigate.

References:

https://www.businessinsider.com/epik-hack-reveals-proud-boys-qanon-backers-names-addresses-2021-9?op=1&r=US&IR=T

https://www.fastcompany.com/90312063/how-cloudflare-straddles-its-role-as-privacy-champion-and-hate-speech-enabler

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/21/epik-far-right-hack-anonymous/

https://www.npr.org/2021/02/08/965448572/meet-the-man-behind-epik-the-tech-firm-keeping-far-right-websites-alive 93.45.229.98 (talk) 06:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we can safely remove the case of The Daily Stormer, which was already on BitMitigate when Epik purchased BitMitigate. And Epik stopped BitMitigate from providing services to The Daily Stormer when it discovered the usage. So this case never is that The Daily Stormer found a safe haven at Epik, nor is that Epik was willing to provide services to The Daily Stormer.

As for Gab and 8chan, I'm not sure how to rephrase the content. And the latter seems be still relying on Epik's DNS services. Matt Smith (talk) 07:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@Matt Smith Don't get me wrong. Mine was just a clarification, the paragraph is fine with me. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 09:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay. But don't you think the case of The Daily Stormer should be removed? It is not an applicable case. Matt Smith (talk) 10:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@Matt Smith The historical fact must remain, but you can make the termination of service clearer. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 11:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll open a new discussion for this issue. Matt Smith (talk) 02:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Off-Topic Content: The Daily Stormer

The Daily Stormer had already been using BitMitigate before Epik acquired BitMitigate, and Epik was totally unaware of that usage. When Epik discovered the usage, it stopped The Daily Stormer from using BitMitigate.[1]

Such a case contradicts the purpose of the Hosting of far-right and illicit content section, which is for showing a list of websites which were expelled by other web hosting services and found a safe haven at Epik.

Including The Daily Stormer in that section not only makes it an off-topic content but can also easily mislead some readers into believing that Epik willingly provided services to The Daily Stormer if they only glance the table of contents and do not or have no time to read the article carefully.

Based on the aforementioned reasons, I feel that such an off-topic and potentially misleading content should be removed. And I'm humbly asking whether there is any objection to the proposed removal. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes there is an objection. BitMitigate redirects to this article. The content, and the attached sources, are specifically about this topic. Grayfell (talk) 04:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

You missed the point. The point is that the case does not fit into the Hosting of far-right and illicit content section. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I would like to add that the case can also be moved to the The Daily Stormer article and does not necessarily need to be removed from Wikipedia. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I assure you I did not miss the point. It wasn't subtle. The content is specifically about Epik's hosting of far-right content. As mentioned above, Wikipedia isn't a platform for public relations, and attempting to soften the placement of this content is therefor inappropriate.

To restate, you do not have consensus for this change, and you have not proposed any policy-based reason to remove this content. Even the cited source for Monster's stated "regret" is followed up with Yet his self-professed boundaries become squishy upon examination.[2] followed by examples of Monster's lack of moral consistency in personally deciding which websites cross his "bright lines". If your effort is to decrease confusion, ignoring sources and attempting to whitewash the article in favor of Epik and Monster's public relations is a poor way to do it. Grayfell (talk) 04:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I thought pointing out the offtopic is enough, but if you want a policy-based reason, here it is: WP:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion.

Whether the case is subtle or not is subjective and is not policy-based. We edit articles based on sources. And it's clear enough from the source that Epik stopped The Daily Stormer from using its services when it discovered the usage, so you shouldn't impose this case on the section just because you think it wasn't subtle.

Off-topic case has no place in the section and removing it is not "whitewashing", so please avoid using that kind of derogatory term. Matt Smith (talk) 05:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@Grayfell @Matt Smith I think there is no need to remove anything but only to add some footnotes. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 09:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

If you have additional sources, please propose them. The article explains cites reliable sources to explain the connection between Epik and Daily Stormer. The article already points out that Epik bought a company which was providing services to these neo-nazi websites, and it even repeats the owners claims that he did not realize they provided these services. (In any sane business, this is something you "discover" before you purchase a company, which the NPR article indirectly acknowledges). The article also includes sources which mention that Epik continued to provide at least some services even after it had publicly announced it was no longer hosting the site's content: Today, 8chan and The Daily Stormer are both back up. The Daily Stormer is up on its original Epik/Voxility netblock, while 8chan has popped up on a netblock owned by Reno, Nevada-based N.T. Technology.[3] This isn't currently mentioned regarding the Daily Stormer, but it could be. Significance is indicated by reliable sources. Since many reliable sources talk about this, the article will also talk about this. Grayfell (talk) 19:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Epik/Masterbucks/ICANN chaos

Recent source on recent woes, reorganization, and sale:

• Goforth, Claire (14 June 2023). "EXCLUSIVE: Far-right domain host Epik cleaved off its debt-riddled assets in sale—leaving customers it owes in flux". The Daily Dot. Retrieved 16 June 2023.

There is a lot to unpack here. Among other things, the source links to a blog post from the ICANN itself, which is odd, to say the least:

• Hedlund, Jamie (9 June 2023). "ICANN Support for Registrants Impacted by Epik Inc". www.icann.org. Retrieved 16 June 2023.

Grayfell (talk) 22:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@Grayfell I didn't understand the change you proposed. If there is any controversy that is missing concerning debt-riddled assets add it. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I have already told you elsewhere to stop pinging me. I mention a source that is useful for the article, this isn't hard to understand. Grayfell (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok my friend. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

CEO confusion

When reading the page, it had me initially believing that Rob Monster is still the CEO, but it's Brian Royce as of September 2022. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.197.22 (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Rob Monster into Epik

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge, as Monster and Epik both have notable independent content. Klbrain (talk) 02:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

---

All sources on this article are about Epik anyway. Bolt and Thunder (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Monster is no longer involved with Epik, as far as I can tell. There is a substantial amount of information on his biography article that is not relevant to Epik, such as his pre-Epik endeavors, Toki, etc. (Note: I created the article.) GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - His article is comprehensive and almost none of that content would belong here. None of the WP:MERGEREASONs are met. DFlhb (talk) 12:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 12:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dan Keen

@Amigao: There have been a few edits recently to remove Dan Keen as the "owner" of Epik. I have no strong opinion on the edits trying to remove a portion of a sentence that Keen owns Registered Agents Inc. (which seems easily verified by RS, though maybe isn't necessary to mention in the lead), but it does seem weird to list Keen as Epik's "owner" when he is in fact the owner of a company that provides a registered agents service. It seems likely, as is supported by the sources, that the actual new owner of Epik is a client of Registered Agents, rather than Keen himself. I think listing him as the owner in the infobox is potentially misleading to readers. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Since Registered Agents Inc. is the owner of Epik (press release), Keen would technically be an ultimate beneficial owner of Epik, which I have seen the infobox 'owner' field serve as. - Amigao (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems like it would be clearer to just omit the field from the IBX and address it in-text, since operationally he likely has nothing to do with Epik. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It's fairly common that an owner is separate from the operational management. I would think that operational management tends to go in the infobox as 'Key People' and the 'Owner' is, well, the owner. - Amigao (talk) 04:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@Amigao:: I read the Wired articles you're using as citations, and it clearly states that Registered Agents Inc acquired assets from Epik (technically, RA Inc. formed an LLC called Epik LLC to acquire the assets from Epik Inc.--I know it's confusing--and the original Epik Inc. entity may no longer exist. This source while not as notable as Wired, explains the ownership chain, I think, clearer: https://www.techradar.com/pro/the-worlds-most-controversial-domain-registrar-has-a-new-owner-and-apparently-it-is-forging-a-new-path)

It seems odd you're fixed on listing an individual as owner, even though in the first Wired article, the company says that Dan Keen is not the owner of Registered Agents Inc. In the second one, he's listed as "founder," and you say he's "beneficial owner." After reading through that story and all the aliases, I'm not even sure if Dan Keen is real :) If he's an alias, then he'd be a key person, but seems like speculation/ambiguity around beneficial ownership, however, there's no ambiguity around legal ownership. So why not list Registered Agents Inc. as owner? Dunkinidaho (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

According to the Feb 8th Wired article, "[T]he founder and owner of Registered Agents...is a man named Dan Keen." The March 5th Wired article is a more in-depth investigation of Dan Keen and the company he founded, Registered Agents Inc. - Amigao (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Fair. Hey, I came in on this page way too hot and didn’t understand the ramifications of my initial edit that kicked this off. That was foolish. My apologies. That said, the additional fields you mentioned in your reply led me to look more so into the company template infobox parameters and I now understand the full context of what @GuerillaWarfare was saying in her initial comment (also thanks to @grayfell for prompting me to the talk page). Albeit a noob, I think for reader clarity it’s cleaner to update the pages' infobox with parent company being Registered Agents Inc., in accordance with the "owner" fields' parameter where it states: “If the company is majority-owned by a single entity and as such is a subsidiary or division, omit the owner field and use the parent field instead. Do not use the owner field to indicate top-level ownership if it differs from the direct parent.”

Reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_company#:~:text=equity%20also%20supplied.-,owner,-(or%20owners) Dunkinidaho (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Grayfell: I see now that I've improperly tagged you in my thanks above, but all the same, I was hoping for additional clarity on your most recent IBX revert? Dunkinidaho (talk) 04:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)