Talk:Epik (domain registrar)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Sources do not back up claims made in the article.[edit]

GW responded to OP questions, and OP seems to have disengaged for a month now. Preserve for future reference. Britishfinance (talk) 17:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.

I decided to split the changes into small bits, to describe each change as accurately as possible. But this is the final version I was going to publish.

Epik is an American privately held and ICANN-accredited domain registrar and web hosting company[1], headquartered in Sammamish, Washington[2]. Its' founder and CEO, Rob Monster, has been involved in a controversy for defending, and eventually hosting Gab's domain[3].

The sources did not reflect what was said in the article. The Wired article focuses on the controversy surrounding the CEO's private statements and the eventual hosting of Gab's domain. My proposal keeps this fact in a WP:NPOV. Also, I've added some much needed sources for information about the company. Alex.osheter (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "ICANN-Accredited Registrars". ICANN. May 5, 2019. Archived from the original on May 5, 2019. Retrieved May 5, 2019. Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (help)
  2. ^ "Corporations and Charities System". ccfs.sos.wa.gov. Retrieved 2019-05-18.
  3. ^ Martineau, Paris (2018-11-06). "How Right-Wing Social Media Site Gab Got Back Online". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 2019-05-18.
You are, once again, attempting to whitewash an article about a company associated with the far right. The sourcing supports the claims in the lead, and so they should remain. The reliable sourcing surrounding Epik exclusively discusses the company in the context of the services it provides to far-right people and organizations. Monster is not somehow personally registering Gab, Epik is. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Read your sources. The Wired article specifically mentions Monster and his statements about Gab prior to registering them. The Seattle Times article simply discusses Gab's new home. The HuffPo article practically ONLY focuses on the founder. Not one source talks about it being known for providing services to websites that host alt-right and white supremacy far-right, Neo-Nazi, and other extremist connections. Alex.osheter (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Don't accuse me of not reading my sources, I wrote the article for Chrissakes. I'm not sure why you're bringing up the alt-right or white supremacy—I have not mentioned the alt-right at all in this article or on this talk page, and white supremacy is only mentioned in the context of The Daily Stormer, which BitMitigate serves. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that's my bad. I've corrected the comment and underlined added text for further clarification. Alex.osheter (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
My comment below addresses the clarified version as well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Response to your claim on my talk page that you were removing statements that are simply not in the source, which is what I did.:

Since each of these points is from a separate source, I'd appreciate it if we could address them separately. I'll add my own comments below each source. Alex.osheter (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

You removed "known for providing services to websites that host far-right, Neo-Nazi, and other extremist content as well as those that sell illegal drugs and counterfeit medications" from the lead.

  • "Social-media site Gab.com, which became an internet outcast after one of its racist users was arrested in the mass shooting at a Pittsburgh synagogue, is back online thanks to the help of a Seattle-area web company.... Bowers was one of many far-right extremists who had found a home at Gab. After the shooting, domain platform GoDaddy told Gab to find another provider, saying that GoDaddy had investigated and “discovered numerous instances of content on the site that both promotes and encourages violence against people."" The Seattle Times GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    • This article discusses Gab. Not Epik specifically, and certainly does not classify Epik as a site that provides services to websites (plural) that host [...] content. Alex.osheter (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Did you read the rest of the source? It talks about both Gab and Epik. A source does not need to be exclusively about a subject to be useful in a Wikipedia article about said subject. Furthermore, Gab is among the websites that Epik provides services to, and a particularly notable one according to the sourcing. As you have said below there are other sources that confirms that Epik provides services to multiple websites with such content; this source just happens to focus on the one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
        • Correction: I said there is one source. That one source (The Columbian) does not characterize Gab a far-right or a Neo-Nazi website. Assuming The Columbian implied it would be OR. These labels (far-right, Neo-Nazi) are contentions, and we need to exercise caution when using them. Alex.osheter (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
          • I was referring to the Vice article as the other source, though you're right that you only mentioned one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "The ease with which Monster, a tiny player in the tech community, was able to revive a gathering space for extremists illustrates the main limitation of deplatforming efforts: They require universal agreement. As long as one person, somewhere, is willing to host the hate, deplatforming doesn’t work. Rob Monster is willing to be that guy." HuffPost GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    • This one also not make the claim that Epik provides services to websites that host [...] content. This article also only seems to talk about Monster himself. I would suggest it be removed as a source entirely. Alex.osheter (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Again, this article discusses both Monster and Epik. See above for comment about the focus on just Gab. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
        • This article dedicates a whole 1 paragraph describing what Epik is, and 7 passing mentions when talking about Monster. Surely you must agree, this article discusses Monster. They even divided the article into sub-sections on Mr. Monster himself. Alex.osheter (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
          • Sure, I agree it discusses Monster. It also discusses Epik, and as I said above "A source does not need to be exclusively about a subject to be useful in a Wikipedia article about said subject." GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "His company Epik describes itself as “the Swiss bank of domains” and is one of the few US-based registrars with a history of refusing to respond to reports of illegal activity. According to a report by the pharmaceutical watchdog organization LegitScript, Epik has been told that some of the domains the company sponsors sell illegal drugs and inauthentic medications, yet the company has not acted." Wired GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Again, accuracy matters. They have been notified once by a single watchdog organization. This is a stretch from "known for". I think this should be included in the article, but definitely not in the lead, and definitely not the way it's phrased now. Also, the word Gab appears in this article more than twice as much as Epik does, it's clearly not the focus of the article. Specifically regarding illegal drugs, I'd recommend giving the actual report as a source, as opposed to an article discussing the report (and again, Gab). Alex.osheter (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
      • I have no strong opinion on this being in the lead (I was not the one who put it there). However, we should continue to use this source, per WP:PRIMARY. If you want to add the report as a source, I have no objection. As for "known for", it is not for us to decide how many notifications are required for them to be "known for" it—that's why we rely on coverage in reliable sourcing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
        • I believe that in the spirit of Wikipedia, it's okay to list is as a source. As long as we quote it directly with no interpretation, it's fine. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources.. The topic's notability isn't put into question here, and we will not interpret the source, simply copy what it says. I believe it's fine. Alex.osheter (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
          • Like I said, go ahead and add the source. Just don't replace the existing one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Since you've challenged the content, per WP:LEADCITE I'll pull up some additional sources that support the characterization, including:

  • "The Far Right Has Found a Web Host Savior // A web host called Epik has begun hosting the sites that other web hosts won't, which raises questions about how successful deplatforming hateful websites can actually be.... The connection between the neo-Nazi podcasters and the Seattle-based company isn’t surprising: The web hosting service has recently become the safehaven for the extreme right." – Vice GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    • This Vice article conflicts with various reliable sources. It alleges Epik is a webhost, which is false. The Seattle Times reports: "Monster said on Epik’s website that his company was serving as Gab’s domain registrar but not its hosting company". We can also verify this, their host is Cloudflare. Therefore, this source is not credible. Please remove it. Alex.osheter (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Epik is a webhost ([1]), they just do not provide their hosting services to Gab. This article does not make the claim that they do, although I wouldn't be surprised to see an article erroneously saying they do (a lot of folks do not know the difference between a registrar and a webhost, and when one company provides both services, I can understand why a reporter might accidentally say "host" instead of "register"). A small error like that would hardly discredit the entire piece. FYI Cloudflare is also not Epik's webhost, as you've erroneously claimed, and the link you've provided to try to show that they are says quite prominently "We're unsure who this website is hosted by" and explains why Cloudflare is mentioned. Cloudflare is not anyone's webhost, for that matter ([2]). As you've said, "accuracy matters"... GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
        • I take it back then, you're right. They are a webhost. But certainly not one that hosts Gab as the article suggests: "Epik seemed to start as a nondescript web host, it has recently updated its mission [...] which has meant grabbing a long list of new far-right clients. [...] Gab, [...] Bitchute, ...". I take issue with reliable sources that make mistakes and don't issue corrections. It calls their reliability into question. Ben Makuch didn't do a good job, and therefore, should not be taken as a source on this. Alex.osheter (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
          • Gab is a webhost, and Gab and Bitchute are among its clients. That is not a mistake, and the article is fine as a source. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "One thing that was not mentioned in Monster’s video: the acquisition brings together two companies that have each made headlines in recent years for providing services to far-right and neo-Nazi websites that have been dropped by other providers." The Columbian GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    • This is a good source, and should be kept. It more or less does state what you wrote. IMO this is the only article that specifically fits here. Alex.osheter (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
      • I would have appreciated you taking a look at this source before accusing me of making "statements that are simply not in the source", then. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
        • Yes, I apologize for that. I did read the articles and attempt to verify your claims, I must've missed it. Alex.osheter (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "Quietly, a small domain registrar called Epik is cornering the market on websites where hate speech is thriving....Now, the company has picked up the business of BitChute, a low-rent YouTube clone that carries an array of hate-fueled material, including white nationalist podcasts, propaganda linked to a murderous neo-Nazi group and a parody song called “N----- Babies,” which chortles at the idea of slaughtering and then eating black infants." – SPLC GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    • The SPLC's stance as a reliable source is heavily contested. They've been right in some cases, and wrong in other ones 1 2 3 . They've been dropped by Twitter as a reliable source for identifying hate groups 4. While they get it right sometimes, I would strongly advise against adding them as a source. Alex.osheter (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Feel free to bring it to WP:RSN if you think the SPLC is across-the-board an unacceptable source. Just about every publication has been "right in some cases, and wrong in other ones"—unless you have a specific reason to believe the statements in this article are inaccurate, that is not a reason to remove it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
        • As I've said, I don't think they're across-the-board an unacceptable source. But they've been quick to call parties they disagree with white supremacist and neo-Nazi in the past. I mean, if you read the article, it's so unbelievably biased and full of loaded language - very unprofessional (Twitter knockoff, a low-rent YouTube clone, the racist right, organized racism, racist, misogynist and antisemitic talking heads). So for this specific case, I have reason to believe the statements are inaccurate and extremely biased. If we are to keep a WP:NPV, given the fact there are other sources that say something similar, it doesn't have to be here. Per WP:NPV - Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether.. There are already enough neutral-ish sources here. Alex.osheter (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
          • Mmm, nope. You "have reason to believe the statements are inaccurate" but have provided no sources contesting anything in the SPLC article. That won't fly. If you think the SPLC is unreliable, bring it to RSN; if you think a statement sourced to the SPLC is inaccurate, provide a counter source. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't see the analogy; SPLC is not offering a competing product to Epik. It is not even in the broad industry category of Epik (unlike Apple and Microsoft)? Britishfinance (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Are you claiming the SPLC is a competitor to Epik? GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
In many ways. The SPLC has a website known for tracking online Nazi finances (though they'd call most Gab and BitChute users Nazis) [3]. On the other hand, Epik is more lenient with the websites they host (like the entire article says). According to The Columbian, """In media interviews, Monster has said he does not support the views of the websites he hosts, and has expressed confidence that Gab’s operators will use good judgment when curating the site. But in a January post on its Hatewatch blog, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that Monster’s willingness to host Gab and similar websites means that he is “cornering the market on websites where hate speech is thriving.” """ As I read it, this establishes that SPLC goes after the "hate speech market". The same Columbian news article cites the nonpartisan EFF saying "But we must also recognize that on the Internet, any tactic used now to silence neo-Nazis will soon be used against others, including people whose opinions we agree with." [4] Monster obviously refutes the accusations from the SPLC. [5] Finally, the SPLC's Twitter account said this verbatim [6]: "GoDaddy and Google made the right call kicking hate site The Daily Stormer off their systems." And GoDaddy is an obvious competitor to Epik [7]. wumbolo ^^^ 19:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
It totally makes sense to say that GoDaddy is a competitor, as it also provides webhosting services. The SPLC does not provide webhosting services, or any other kind of services that Epik provides. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Trying to remove reference to Epik's hosting and association with far-right elements is not a credible line of reasoning. A material amount of WP:RS on this company mentions this fact, and it is one of the most notable facts regarding the company; thus appropriate in the lede. Britishfinance (talk) 10:10, 19 May 2019 (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.

Sources do not back up claims made in the article.[edit]

GW responded to OP questions, and OP seems to have disengaged for a month now. Preserve for future reference. Britishfinance (talk) 17:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.

I decided to split the changes into small bits, to describe each change as accurately as possible. But this is the final version I was going to publish.

Epik is an American privately held and ICANN-accredited domain registrar and web hosting company[1], headquartered in Sammamish, Washington[2]. Its' founder and CEO, Rob Monster, has been involved in a controversy for defending, and eventually hosting Gab's domain[3].

The sources did not reflect what was said in the article. The Wired article focuses on the controversy surrounding the CEO's private statements and the eventual hosting of Gab's domain. My proposal keeps this fact in a WP:NPOV. Also, I've added some much needed sources for information about the company. Alex.osheter (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "ICANN-Accredited Registrars". ICANN. May 5, 2019. Archived from the original on May 5, 2019. Retrieved May 5, 2019. Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (help)
  2. ^ "Corporations and Charities System". ccfs.sos.wa.gov. Retrieved 2019-05-18.
  3. ^ Martineau, Paris (2018-11-06). "How Right-Wing Social Media Site Gab Got Back Online". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 2019-05-18.
You are, once again, attempting to whitewash an article about a company associated with the far right. The sourcing supports the claims in the lead, and so they should remain. The reliable sourcing surrounding Epik exclusively discusses the company in the context of the services it provides to far-right people and organizations. Monster is not somehow personally registering Gab, Epik is. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Read your sources. The Wired article specifically mentions Monster and his statements about Gab prior to registering them. The Seattle Times article simply discusses Gab's new home. The HuffPo article practically ONLY focuses on the founder. Not one source talks about it being known for providing services to websites that host alt-right and white supremacy far-right, Neo-Nazi, and other extremist connections. Alex.osheter (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Don't accuse me of not reading my sources, I wrote the article for Chrissakes. I'm not sure why you're bringing up the alt-right or white supremacy—I have not mentioned the alt-right at all in this article or on this talk page, and white supremacy is only mentioned in the context of The Daily Stormer, which BitMitigate serves. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that's my bad. I've corrected the comment and underlined added text for further clarification. Alex.osheter (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
My comment below addresses the clarified version as well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Response to your claim on my talk page that you were removing statements that are simply not in the source, which is what I did.:

Since each of these points is from a separate source, I'd appreciate it if we could address them separately. I'll add my own comments below each source. Alex.osheter (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

You removed "known for providing services to websites that host far-right, Neo-Nazi, and other extremist content as well as those that sell illegal drugs and counterfeit medications" from the lead.

  • "Social-media site Gab.com, which became an internet outcast after one of its racist users was arrested in the mass shooting at a Pittsburgh synagogue, is back online thanks to the help of a Seattle-area web company.... Bowers was one of many far-right extremists who had found a home at Gab. After the shooting, domain platform GoDaddy told Gab to find another provider, saying that GoDaddy had investigated and “discovered numerous instances of content on the site that both promotes and encourages violence against people."" The Seattle Times GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    • This article discusses Gab. Not Epik specifically, and certainly does not classify Epik as a site that provides services to websites (plural) that host [...] content. Alex.osheter (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Did you read the rest of the source? It talks about both Gab and Epik. A source does not need to be exclusively about a subject to be useful in a Wikipedia article about said subject. Furthermore, Gab is among the websites that Epik provides services to, and a particularly notable one according to the sourcing. As you have said below there are other sources that confirms that Epik provides services to multiple websites with such content; this source just happens to focus on the one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
        • Correction: I said there is one source. That one source (The Columbian) does not characterize Gab a far-right or a Neo-Nazi website. Assuming The Columbian implied it would be OR. These labels (far-right, Neo-Nazi) are contentions, and we need to exercise caution when using them. Alex.osheter (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
          • I was referring to the Vice article as the other source, though you're right that you only mentioned one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "The ease with which Monster, a tiny player in the tech community, was able to revive a gathering space for extremists illustrates the main limitation of deplatforming efforts: They require universal agreement. As long as one person, somewhere, is willing to host the hate, deplatforming doesn’t work. Rob Monster is willing to be that guy." HuffPost GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    • This one also not make the claim that Epik provides services to websites that host [...] content. This article also only seems to talk about Monster himself. I would suggest it be removed as a source entirely. Alex.osheter (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Again, this article discusses both Monster and Epik. See above for comment about the focus on just Gab. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
        • This article dedicates a whole 1 paragraph describing what Epik is, and 7 passing mentions when talking about Monster. Surely you must agree, this article discusses Monster. They even divided the article into sub-sections on Mr. Monster himself. Alex.osheter (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
          • Sure, I agree it discusses Monster. It also discusses Epik, and as I said above "A source does not need to be exclusively about a subject to be useful in a Wikipedia article about said subject." GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "His company Epik describes itself as “the Swiss bank of domains” and is one of the few US-based registrars with a history of refusing to respond to reports of illegal activity. According to a report by the pharmaceutical watchdog organization LegitScript, Epik has been told that some of the domains the company sponsors sell illegal drugs and inauthentic medications, yet the company has not acted." Wired GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Again, accuracy matters. They have been notified once by a single watchdog organization. This is a stretch from "known for". I think this should be included in the article, but definitely not in the lead, and definitely not the way it's phrased now. Also, the word Gab appears in this article more than twice as much as Epik does, it's clearly not the focus of the article. Specifically regarding illegal drugs, I'd recommend giving the actual report as a source, as opposed to an article discussing the report (and again, Gab). Alex.osheter (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
      • I have no strong opinion on this being in the lead (I was not the one who put it there). However, we should continue to use this source, per WP:PRIMARY. If you want to add the report as a source, I have no objection. As for "known for", it is not for us to decide how many notifications are required for them to be "known for" it—that's why we rely on coverage in reliable sourcing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
        • I believe that in the spirit of Wikipedia, it's okay to list is as a source. As long as we quote it directly with no interpretation, it's fine. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources.. The topic's notability isn't put into question here, and we will not interpret the source, simply copy what it says. I believe it's fine. Alex.osheter (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
          • Like I said, go ahead and add the source. Just don't replace the existing one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Since you've challenged the content, per WP:LEADCITE I'll pull up some additional sources that support the characterization, including:

  • "The Far Right Has Found a Web Host Savior // A web host called Epik has begun hosting the sites that other web hosts won't, which raises questions about how successful deplatforming hateful websites can actually be.... The connection between the neo-Nazi podcasters and the Seattle-based company isn’t surprising: The web hosting service has recently become the safehaven for the extreme right." – Vice GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    • This Vice article conflicts with various reliable sources. It alleges Epik is a webhost, which is false. The Seattle Times reports: "Monster said on Epik’s website that his company was serving as Gab’s domain registrar but not its hosting company". We can also verify this, their host is Cloudflare. Therefore, this source is not credible. Please remove it. Alex.osheter (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Epik is a webhost ([8]), they just do not provide their hosting services to Gab. This article does not make the claim that they do, although I wouldn't be surprised to see an article erroneously saying they do (a lot of folks do not know the difference between a registrar and a webhost, and when one company provides both services, I can understand why a reporter might accidentally say "host" instead of "register"). A small error like that would hardly discredit the entire piece. FYI Cloudflare is also not Epik's webhost, as you've erroneously claimed, and the link you've provided to try to show that they are says quite prominently "We're unsure who this website is hosted by" and explains why Cloudflare is mentioned. Cloudflare is not anyone's webhost, for that matter ([9]). As you've said, "accuracy matters"... GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
        • I take it back then, you're right. They are a webhost. But certainly not one that hosts Gab as the article suggests: "Epik seemed to start as a nondescript web host, it has recently updated its mission [...] which has meant grabbing a long list of new far-right clients. [...] Gab, [...] Bitchute, ...". I take issue with reliable sources that make mistakes and don't issue corrections. It calls their reliability into question. Ben Makuch didn't do a good job, and therefore, should not be taken as a source on this. Alex.osheter (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
          • Gab is a webhost, and Gab and Bitchute are among its clients. That is not a mistake, and the article is fine as a source. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "One thing that was not mentioned in Monster’s video: the acquisition brings together two companies that have each made headlines in recent years for providing services to far-right and neo-Nazi websites that have been dropped by other providers." The Columbian GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    • This is a good source, and should be kept. It more or less does state what you wrote. IMO this is the only article that specifically fits here. Alex.osheter (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
      • I would have appreciated you taking a look at this source before accusing me of making "statements that are simply not in the source", then. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
        • Yes, I apologize for that. I did read the articles and attempt to verify your claims, I must've missed it. Alex.osheter (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "Quietly, a small domain registrar called Epik is cornering the market on websites where hate speech is thriving....Now, the company has picked up the business of BitChute, a low-rent YouTube clone that carries an array of hate-fueled material, including white nationalist podcasts, propaganda linked to a murderous neo-Nazi group and a parody song called “N----- Babies,” which chortles at the idea of slaughtering and then eating black infants." – SPLC GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    • The SPLC's stance as a reliable source is heavily contested. They've been right in some cases, and wrong in other ones 1 2 3 . They've been dropped by Twitter as a reliable source for identifying hate groups 4. While they get it right sometimes, I would strongly advise against adding them as a source. Alex.osheter (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Feel free to bring it to WP:RSN if you think the SPLC is across-the-board an unacceptable source. Just about every publication has been "right in some cases, and wrong in other ones"—unless you have a specific reason to believe the statements in this article are inaccurate, that is not a reason to remove it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
        • As I've said, I don't think they're across-the-board an unacceptable source. But they've been quick to call parties they disagree with white supremacist and neo-Nazi in the past. I mean, if you read the article, it's so unbelievably biased and full of loaded language - very unprofessional (Twitter knockoff, a low-rent YouTube clone, the racist right, organized racism, racist, misogynist and antisemitic talking heads). So for this specific case, I have reason to believe the statements are inaccurate and extremely biased. If we are to keep a WP:NPV, given the fact there are other sources that say something similar, it doesn't have to be here. Per WP:NPV - Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether.. There are already enough neutral-ish sources here. Alex.osheter (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
          • Mmm, nope. You "have reason to believe the statements are inaccurate" but have provided no sources contesting anything in the SPLC article. That won't fly. If you think the SPLC is unreliable, bring it to RSN; if you think a statement sourced to the SPLC is inaccurate, provide a counter source. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't see the analogy; SPLC is not offering a competing product to Epik. It is not even in the broad industry category of Epik (unlike Apple and Microsoft)? Britishfinance (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Are you claiming the SPLC is a competitor to Epik? GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
In many ways. The SPLC has a website known for tracking online Nazi finances (though they'd call most Gab and BitChute users Nazis) [10]. On the other hand, Epik is more lenient with the websites they host (like the entire article says). According to The Columbian, """In media interviews, Monster has said he does not support the views of the websites he hosts, and has expressed confidence that Gab’s operators will use good judgment when curating the site. But in a January post on its Hatewatch blog, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that Monster’s willingness to host Gab and similar websites means that he is “cornering the market on websites where hate speech is thriving.” """ As I read it, this establishes that SPLC goes after the "hate speech market". The same Columbian news article cites the nonpartisan EFF saying "But we must also recognize that on the Internet, any tactic used now to silence neo-Nazis will soon be used against others, including people whose opinions we agree with." [11] Monster obviously refutes the accusations from the SPLC. [12] Finally, the SPLC's Twitter account said this verbatim [13]: "GoDaddy and Google made the right call kicking hate site The Daily Stormer off their systems." And GoDaddy is an obvious competitor to Epik [14]. wumbolo ^^^ 19:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
It totally makes sense to say that GoDaddy is a competitor, as it also provides webhosting services. The SPLC does not provide webhosting services, or any other kind of services that Epik provides. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Trying to remove reference to Epik's hosting and association with far-right elements is not a credible line of reasoning. A material amount of WP:RS on this company mentions this fact, and it is one of the most notable facts regarding the company; thus appropriate in the lede. Britishfinance (talk) 10:10, 19 May 2019 (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.

Call for action[edit]

Thought I should warn you all about a call for help [[15]].Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

known for providing services also to websites that host[edit]

What does this mean "known for providing services also to websites that host far-right, Neo-Nazi, and other extremist content as well as those that sell illegal drugs and counterfeit medications"? either the to or the also are in the wrong place.Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I see you've removed "also" which is what I would've done. Not sure if it was added accidentally or not but I agree it doesn't make sense. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Looks like it was intentionally added: [16] GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)