PayPal apparently inquired about flows of money through the registrar before terminating services; domain name registrar with controversial customers says it is being deplatformed.
PayPal has discontinued providing services to domain name registrar Epik.
It’s not entirely clear what happened, but Epik has commented on the decision in multi-page letters to PayPal employees, the CEO of PayPal, and a reporter for Bloomberg who apparently asked the company about some of the sites that use its services.
The letters from Epik SVP of Strategy and Communications Rob Davis noted that PayPal informed it:
“PayPal has determined that we will no longer provide our services to you due to service risk. A business decision has been made to no longer process transactions on your behalf…”
PayPal did not allow it to appeal.
Further explanation in the letters suggests that PayPal inquired about the provenance of some of the money flowing through Epik. In a letter to PayPal’s CEO, Davis wrote:
This is before we even address what looks like the intentional and inaccurate classification of our proven business model as a domain registrar, as a possible money laundering operation invoking compartmentalized handling procedures for convenient cover related to the Patriot Act…
Davis mentions that PayPal inquired about offshore numbered accounts, money transmission licenses, Patriot Act certificates, AML, external process flows, and other queries related to cross‐border activities and law enforcement. He called these questions “absolutely absurd, and well outside of any knowledge or experience we have as a domain registrar.”
Epik believes PayPal’s action is actually an attempt to “deplatform” the registrar, which is known for catering to fringe and far-right groups. Among its customers are Gab.com, which came under fire after the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, and Alex Jones’ InfoWars, a conspiracy theory site.
In an open letter to PayPal employees, Davis wrote:
It would appear that in a direct effort to silence conservative voices, PayPal has terminated our payment services ‐ just two weeks before a Presidential election. While the concept of technology firms targeting conservative‐owned companies to deplatform, demonetize, and deindex users is not unknown to us, the degree of tyranny and oppression that this particular action represents cannot go unaddressed by the American people. The fact that PayPal would initiate these steps at the exact time major technology firms are being exposed for censorship and being called to Congress is beyond rational thinking. It is like key executives are going out of their way to subject your company to the type of scrutiny that changes organizations forever.
…. With more than 100,000 customers and approximately two million domain names under management, many of our clients also represent leading conservative voices, who together can achieve and influence hundreds of millions of unique visitors each and every month. In the wake of damning evidence about Hunter Biden that threatens to expose elements of the DNC for being overtly anti‐American, PayPal has now seemingly moved into an aggressive phase of delivering brutal consequences for those who stand for truth.
Epik also links to a story about PayPal accidentally asking some sellers for additional information related to their accounts. PayPal said it was a technical error, but Epik links to it by suggesting that the glitch was really a cover for deplatforming.
The registrar also published contact information for many PayPal and GoDaddy executives.
Update: Mashable reports that PayPal confirmed it was confirmed about financial risk. A source told it the issue is with Epik’s “Masterbucks” currency.
John Berryhill says
“The registrar also published contact information for many PayPal and GoDaddy executives.”
They doxxed a lot of relatively low-level employees in organizations which have perfectly functioning published media contacts.
Like, oh yeah, I’m going to need the direct phone number of persons at Paypal identified as “Technical Writer” or “Executive Assistant” in order to “interview” them about whatever this might be about.
Andrew Allemann says
I didn’t look particularly close at the list.
Brad Mugford says
I agree. This is nothing more than a doxxing.
Additionally, a lot of the information in the letter is hyperbole, misleading, or opinion based.
I am also confused exactly why there is a long list of GoDaddy contacts under “GoDaddy Executive Contacts List for Interviews”.
What does this have to do with GoDaddy exactly?
Posting publicly available corporate email addresses and phone numbers is considered “doxxing”? I guess business contact databases like Zoominfo and hunter.io are totally illegal then! Call the FBI, the sky is falling!
IKR? Well said. “Hunter.io,” ay? Lol.
You getting this, Berryhill and Mugford?
What did they expect operating unlicensed and illegally?
Good luck, Rob.
In Rob i trust
Gary Simmoneli says
This is disgraceful. These companies need to be broken up. All of them.
Brad Mugford says
“In the wake of damning evidence about Hunter Biden that threatens to expose elements of the DNC for being overtly anti‐American, PayPal has now seemingly moved into an aggressive phase of delivering brutal consequences for those who stand for truth.”
Seriously, Hunter Biden…
Just be a company and quit playing politics. It hurts your business far more than you realize.
It seems like conservatives have gone from the party of “personal responsibility” to the party of constant victimhood and conspiracies.
Bottom like really is that Paypal is a private company, and therefore can choose who they want to do business with.
Andrew Allemann says
They are a private company and get to make this decision. That said, this makes the assumption that PayPal dropped them as part of “deplatforming”. While we don’t know the full story, the letters refer to PayPal asking information that it would ask clients as part of financial law compliance.
Call me crazy but the line of questioning suggests that Paypal’s attention has been drawn to certain transactions involving the company. Hence, the move to protect themselves and shield their business from any potential regulatory risk is normal and expected. The risk in itself is real.
This is no different from what many local, regional and national banks did to certain customers with improper foreign transactions a few years back after the various Acts were passed following 9/11 and again 2007 financial collapse.
Now, if EPIK feels that they were wrongly terminated, I presume they have a legal remedy that they can pursue. I have a strong feeling that there’s more to the story beyond the drastic action taken especially with no appeal rights.
PayPal can never prohibit me from sending my money to the one we want, it has never prohibited it and I do not think it will do so because currently the technological financial system is much more advanced although PayPal has a recognized brand name, financially the worst evil is to choose to one part or another this is how the world goes today.
You are a naive man.
Thank you, for your kindness.
Pt L says
“It seems like conservatives have gone from the party of “personal responsibility” to the party of constant victimhood and conspiracies.”…
Hmmm, so if a person is bitten by an unleashed dog, he/she is not a “victim”? You wanna shut down all critical thinking, just call ppl RACIST, that oughtta do it!
The Usual Suspect says
Oh, like baking a wedding cake for an alternative lifestyle couple? I get it.
I had a small problem with Paypal that did not accept my payments to Epik.com about a year and a half ago, in the end paypal accept that I continue to pay from Epik.com with Paypal I present my reasons and paypal understand.
What happens now between Epik and Paypal. It does not have to affect their customer accounts that the two companies use for their business, it is a matter between Epik and Paypal that they must solve between them, without affecting us.
Godaddy/Paypal “shared board member”.
I remember how my dispute with Registrar X over a domain went many years ago that ended up on very popular Expired Domain Auction Company Y… how did it end, an individual who sat on both boards made the decision, shockingly against my request and Drop Company made $25,000 at auction.
Now this case with Epik goes much deeper and wider but I believe the decisions made to end the relationship was in fact a combination imo of both personal opinion based and financial.
I figured this is what was going on after I discovered the PayPal issue at Epik. Absolutely appalling, sickening. I hope this will not be allowed to stand, and that Epik will be compensated for this travesty. It also affects clients and customers.
By the way, on a side note for anyone who is not aware, the censorship and suppression is not just against conservative voices, which is mostly what you hear about if you hear anything at all. It is also very much and hugely against others who simply deviate from the “establishment.” That includes against the real left and real progressives, which should most definitely *not* be confused with the pretend neoliberal Democratic establishment “fake left” and fake (anything but, and not) progressives. In the mainstream media, what you normally see referred to constantly and daily as the (“radical,” “extreme,” “socialist,” whatever) “left” is actually not the real left at all. The fake left even hates (and suppresses) the real left far more than they do conservatives, Republicans, and the right. And both the fake left and the right are completely in bed together and united on what they *really* care about the most as their top priorities, as one uni-party as it were, appearance of mortal conflict through the political theater and professional wrestling of culture wars and identity politics and other arguments notwithstanding. The sooner people learn and discover that beyond the Matrix the better.
Times like this are when we need to support Epik, organizations like it and the important principles involved even more than we did before.
Joseph Peterson says
Regarding this matter (PayPal discontinuing service for Epik) I know only what I’ve read here in this DNW article. Moreover, if there has been any news about Epik during the year and half since I resigned, I probably didn’t notice. Yet even at this remove, I’ll hazard a few remarks.
Paypal’s rationale is opaque: “due to service risk”. Any longstanding e-commerce website, finding itself suddenly cut off by a crucial payment processor, deserves a more detailed explanation as well as the chance to appeal the decision.
Did PayPal provide these 2 things – an explanation and a route for remedy? Perhaps they did. If not, why not? Would it be Paypal’s standard practice to drop a merchant without giving reasons or a path to reinstatement? Honestly I don’t pretend to know. But if it turns out that PayPal deviated from its standard process in order to terminate the relationship with Epik in a rushed and/or irrevocable way, then that would merit some examination, wouldn’t it?
Some people, who dislike Epik and wish to see the company punished, will cheer this action by PayPal. But it’s important to understand who is really affected and how.
Epik is primarily a domain registrar and marketplace – like many others. And PayPal is used at Epik in the standard way for the same types of transactions that one would see at numerous similar websites. Small-business owners and domainers use PayPal to renew their domains. Or they use PayPal to transfer those domains from a registrar that wasn’t meeting their needs. Or to register new domains at their registrar of choice. PayPal is also used for monthly domain leasing, which Epik innovated many years ago. And, of course, PayPal is used to purchase domains that are listed for sale by their owners.
Such transactions have occurred for many years at Epik, and they continue to occur at registrars and domain marketplaces everywhere. What exactly is the “service risk” that PayPal alleges? That’s not a rhetorical question. For example, if there were an unusual frequency of charge-backs, then PayPal might be justified. But because PayPal transactions of this kind are so universal and commonplace, it appears that PayPal is treating Epik in a way different from similar websites, which continue to operate using PayPal just as Epik has done. Perhaps there really is some justification I’m unaware of. But in the absence of an articulated rationale by PayPal, it’s fair to harbor doubts.
The casualties of this PayPal ban will be ordinary Epik customers whose auto-renewals or monthly lease payments unexpectedly fail. That may cause some domains to be lost through no fault of the owners. Or a domain lease, if interrupted, might cause a website outage for some small business. Configuring recurring PayPal payments was 1 initiative I oversaw at Epik, actually. So it’s dismaying to see that work undone. And I remember well how anxious customers could be on the phone when they found their website down due to a missed lease payment. That would be even more stressful during a pandemic, I imagine.
Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that PayPal is treating Epik in a way different from other domain registrars and marketplaces. Why would that be? I can think of 2 possibilities:
(A) PayPal may wish to avoid association with controversial viewpoints expressed at websites such as Gab, whose domain is registered at Epik;
(B) PayPal may have concerns about Epik’s domain escrow service, which some would claim requires various additional licenses and certifications.
It’s possible that both of these are true simultaneously or even that (B) could be used as a pretext, while the true motivation might be (A). If the annual renewal fee for Gab.com (under $10) is not paid for with PayPal at all, then maybe PayPal would find it difficult to point to Gab.com directly as a policy violation. Theoretically, that might explain why a pretext (if used) would be used.
Then again, Paypal’s motivation might be based only on (B), which is strictly apolitical. To me, it seems clear that (B) is involved, since PayPal reportedly requested “money transmission licenses, Patriot Act certificates, AML, external process flows, [etc.]”
One thing I would stress: Neither (A) nor (B) would happen as a spontaneous action by PayPal. In either case, some outside complaint would presumably have spurred action. After all, PayPal payments at Epik flowed smoothly for many years. And an object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon.
A bit of history may help explain things. Toward the end of my time as Director of Operations, 4 or 5 different state regulators suddenly and simultaneously opened cases regarding Epik’s domain escrow service. Some cases were closed in Epik’s favor. Others hadn’t yet been closed when I left. All of these cases were instigated by Jackson Elsegood from Escrow.com as an attempt to sabotage a competitor. That’s not conjecture on my part. The state regulators identified him and emphasized that they only open cases in response to complaints they receive. Additionally, we had a copy of the letter Jackson was circulating.
It seems odd that PayPal would ask for so many licenses and certificates unless prompted to do so as a result of some problem or complaint. Surely PayPal doesn’t ordinarily ask for Patriot Act certificates and Money Transmission licenses from their e-commerce merchants. And I doubt other domain registrars and marketplaces, which provide services like those at Epik, have been asked for such additional licenses and certifications by PayPal. (My colleagues will correct me if I’m wrong.)
So what incident or person caused PayPal to request such abnormal credentials from Epik? I’m not insinuating anything. But there must be an answer to that question, and I’m curious what it is.
On the other hand, if Paypal is primarily concerned about extremist alt-right views found on websites like Gab, then I’d assume they are likewise responding to some outside complaint or to the risk of bad publicity. At this point, PayPal would be quite slow on the draw if reacting to the original Gab controversy.
After the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting 2 years ago, public pressure focused on GoDaddy, where Gab.com was registered; and GoDaddy jettisoned their problematic customer in response. As the domain had to be transferred somewhere, Epik stepped in to received that domain. Predictably, the de-platforming campaign that had targeted GoDaddy immediately followed Gab.com to Epik. I witnessed personal harassment of Epik employees, who were called racists and supporters of murder – myself included. Insults of that kind are not as effective, however, as public pressure campaigns laser-targeted at service providers such as PayPal.
Objectively, there has been a concerted movement to de-platform various unwholesome websites such as Gab.com. It’s part of “cancel culture” more broadly. Those who aim to eliminate websites they regard as morally heinous have a lot of zeal and tenacity. So perhaps they have been pressuring PayPal to drop Epik for quite some time and only recently succeeded, whether by dint of attrition or thanks to some new negative story apt to break a camel’s back. Such tactics have been used elsewhere, and I saw some of this firsthand while still at Epik.
Then again, maybe PayPal’s decision had nothing to do with politics. Genuinely, I don’t pretend to know. It does seem to me that if PayPal has dropped Epik on account of Epik’s embrace of customers whose views and values PayPal abjures, then PayPal really just ought to publicly state their position. That stance would be easy to cast in a good light, since Gab was already tied to 1 antisemitic massacre (via 1 of the forum’s members) and presumably contains racist opinions, violent rhetoric, and conspiracy theories even now. So, from a PR standpoint, there would be no need to give “service risk” as a vague justification for dropping Epik – not if politics is the true reason. Companies who see themselves as taking the moral high ground normally want to announce it, don’t they? Even if the main goal is to dodge flak on social media, it’s more beneficial to proudly declare a decision than to quietly placate one’s critics. Right?
Obviously, Rob at Epik believes politics to be the real reason for Paypal’s ban. That’s certainly possible, though I can’t tell yet whether that’s the case.
However, Rob’s letter is no way to convince a neutral observer of anything. Insofar as Epik has a legitimate grievance and a case for reinstatement at PayPal, that central issue is buried beneath political opinions that strike me (and I daresay most people) as strident and strange.
Why rant about an “overtly anti‐American” DNC or the supposedly “damning evidence about Hunter Biden”? The public will be scratching their heads, distracted by those irrelevant far-fetched claims. Shouldn’t the goal be to emphasize the normalcy of Epik’s PayPal transactions and the inequality of the standard applied by PayPal to Epik compared to other companies? Why inject politics at all? It undercuts Epik’s potentially valid argument.
The underlying belief seems to be that PayPal is part of a vast conspiracy to silence conservative voices, influence the elections, insulate Joe Biden, and destroy America. A fever dream, I’d say. Yet there is a grain of truth, insofar as mainstream companies have sometimes chosen to erase right-wing content or cut ties with right-wing websites, thereby hurting their prospects for gaining an audience or even their very survival.
Also, I must acknowledge that a very sizable minority of people inside the USA – a subsection of Trump supporters, basically – are prone to see the world as Rob’s letter describes it. Courting that audience – by positioning Epik as a haven for right-wing websites and by launching a series of anti-censorship products – had become a major pillar of Epik’s strategy when I left in the Spring of 2019.
So perhaps this letter, so patently counterproductive when it comes to persuading PayPal or the general public, should be seen more as an overture to the right-wing audience whose champion and protector Epik’s CEO wishes to be – i.e. “those who stand for truth”.
It wouldn’t shock me if the goal turns out not to be reinstatement at PayPal but rather to launch an “alt tech” competitor to PayPal that will service the needs of right-wing websites worried about censorship and de-platforming. In our divided culture these days, there is a general tendency to create a parallel set of services to compensate for de-platforming and censorship. That is, after all, how Gab sprung up – as an alt-tech alternative to other social media platforms. Even Fox News originated long ago as a conservative alternative to existing news media, which were felt to stifle conservative views. Recently, FaceBook and Twitter have deleted content by QAnon adherents and even Donald Trump himself. To some, that censorship of false and dangerous content is seen as justified. But there are millions of people who believe the deleted content is true and important. So it shouldn’t be shocking that they feel persecuted and look for new platforms and providers.
We all live in information bubbles and tend to overestimate the number of people who think like we do. Given the way Rob’s letter takes for granted various talking points from the fringe of right-wing U.S. politics, it’s clear that he isn’t paying attention to a broad spectrum of people or else doesn’t mind alienating them. But the same is true of progressives who have advocated censorship and de-platforming. Those actions inevitably cause an ostracized minority to congregate on alternative platforms of their own invention, weaving together alternative realities that have little, then less, then nothing in common with the world those progressives believe in. Is it any wonder people become radicalized in a QAnon stew of conspiracy theories? These days, the righteous on on both extremes wish to delegitimize, shun, and eliminate one another rather than foster dialogue; and that only exacerbates the problem.
During my time at Epik, politics simply wasn’t discussed. We were a neutral service provider. That changed dramatically toward the end, after Rob exited DigitalTown, around the time of the Gab.com transfer. For awhile it seemed possible to reestablish the brand as a politically neutral mainstream company. But that wasn’t the direction Epik took.
I continue to believe the world / web will be a better place if service providers remain neutral, open to all comers, and adopt an even-handed, studiously apolitical approach. That includes protecting unpopular viewpoints with which we disagree. By service providers I mean domain registrars, payment processors, gas stations, grocery stores, and so forth. Companies that everybody relies upon should not be in the business of banning people – except by applying a policy in a uniform way that targets nobody.
PayPal’s decision to ban Epik seems misguided to me – at least, in the absence of some very compelling justification. But I fail to see how taking PayPal away from ordinary customers at Epik is reasonable. This won’t eliminate a website like Gab, after all. It can pay its annual renewal fee of $9 or whatever with or without PayPal.
Wishing that Epik had remained apolitical is, at this point, pointless. But if there had been a resolutely apolitical, neutral registrar for Gab.com to be transferred to, would they have been sufficiently resolute to defend that website’s right to exist – in spite of some very offensive, dangerous content – in the face of a determined de-platforming campaign, which might cost that registrar its use of PayPal, among other things? I’m not sure that ideal, neutral registrar exists. Most companies, when push comes to shove, will happily ban a customer to keep the majority happy – all the more willingly if they themselves disapprove of that customer. Sooner or later, those ostracized customers end up finding a non-neutral provider that will advocate on their behalf.
Eloquent as usual my friend. It probably would have been helpful to see Epik’s update today (below). Maybe saved you some time. The resource links at the bottom of http://www.epik.com/paypal are another world as well. Had no idea the work they were doing actually fighting hate.
There is no correspondence from PayPal Shaun, and they have refused to offer any formal guidance, other than two comments provided “off the record” – one being that the SPLC was directly guiding the CEO in termination of services for various organizations for positioning and political reasons. PayPal’s CEO has confirmed this in public, and we have materials coming out shortly detailing SPLC’s targeting methods, and how it is leveraged in an attempt to destroy individuals and organizations outside of their plans.
PayPal did originally suspend services in May, prompting an exchange and phone call with PayPal’s CEO executive team three days later. This was centered over the possible controversy of one of their executives being moved from PayPal to a board member position at GoDaddy, which resulted in a number of negative actions that were seen as directly correlated and designed to harm Epik. The CEO’s team made corrective actions and restored services almost immediately, and we never released the correspondence knowing it could be devastating to both of them. We never expected they would actually terminate our services permanently, in part due to the transparency of the malfeasance that was involved.
This is the last direct interaction we have had with PayPal, as they have since deleted all of the successfully completed questionnaires prior provided. Our understanding from their service team prior to June, was that they had possibly not factored our status as a domain registrar as the reason we would have so many small inbound international payments. They were unable to provide any further guidance though on the motivation of their executives – because it frankly made no sense to them.
The other comment received directly from a PayPal staffer earlier in the year was so horrific in its context, that I had hoped we would never have to share it. The summary was that PayPal was going to create difficulties for Epik, because they did not like Rob Monster privately helping hardship cases out with small personal loans to get them through periods of difficulty. The inference being that there may be higher level narratives to inflict harm on specific human beings. My prediction is that on future look back, we will all discover that the AWS “Buckets” used by GoDaddy and others are not just being used for data storage, but to literally decide who is welcome in the future Utopia they have deluded themselves to believing they are building together. They were built for weaponized targeting, not just data correlation.
We see so many lines being crossed and moved daily now, that most Americans are unfortunately becoming numb to the recognition of when they should be speaking out. Even doing so can result in coordinated attacks to dismantle entire livelihoods with precision execution. We have passed the point of entire sections of leadership refusing to even condemn police stations being burned to the ground – while officers are literally being assassinated in the streets – so I’m not sure I even recognize the country (or world) I live in anymore.
Prayers for the individuals in Nigeria and other locations that are literally seeing their friends and loved ones being killed in their local streets and neighborhoods. There are many living in fear, and more leaders needing to step up before this gets any further out of hand. We should be kissing the ground here daily in thankfulness and appreciation for the incredible gifts we have that most unfortunately take for granted. If we lose respect and perspective for what we have to be truly thankful for, then we will never even know when it is time to actually put up a fight. We are being lulled by misdirection.
That was a good read, Joseph, and you make a number of good points so well, even though in places I also strongly disagree with you and think you have missed “the truth.” But I’m not here to argue any point of disagreement in your statement now, which I suspect would be fruitless and pointless anyway. However, I am in the mood to share a few more thoughts.
I’m actually a bit surprised at the degree to which you use the “conspiracies/conspiracy theories” card, and you seem to really mean it. I’ve seen you do it before as well. In my view you are a surprising and puzzling combination of simultaneous brilliance mixed with naivete and “benightedness.” You use it to an extent that envelopes “the truth” even though there are certainly some discrediting “conspiracy theories” out there in the same way there are also many real “conspiracies.” That’s just being frank with you with all good will.
I did want to quote this right now for the sake of the common good:
“But the same is true of progressives who have advocated censorship and de-platforming.”
Long story short, “progressive” is one of the most misused terms in politics, in the same way the ubiquitous term “left” is. Therefore, it’s actually hard to even know what you are referring to, since that term is even used to describe people and matters which have nothing whatsoever to do with real “progressivism” and has even been falsely co-opted by some elements of the Democratic establishment themselves. In light of this and other comments I’ve seen you make before, however, I suspect you actually do have the mainstream Democratic establishment in mind when you use that term. If you do, suffice it to say, the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer and the corporate Democratic establishment have nothing whatsoever to do with being genuinely “progressive.” The truth is that real “real progressives” are vehemently anti-censorship and pro free speech and neutrality. However, since people are people, and so prone to flaws and faults and imperfections, there are indeed some who genuinely fall within a spectrum of “real progressive” who are misguided and mistaken, and have made the mistake of supporting censorship at times. A good example of that kind of bad example would be the most famous two faces of “The Young Turks” to illustrate. However, to name names and give a good example of a good example of vehement anti-censorhship (yes I meant to say that twice), the “gold standard” of real “real progressive” would be a man like Jimmy Dore of The Jimmy Dore Show on YouTube, for instance. Also people like Aaron Maté of The Grayzone, and others. No matter which way you (the collective you) lean, by the way – right, left, or both/and plus other, you would actually do well to subscribe to the The Jimmy Dore Show YouTube channel. Every truth teller and every “real journalist” and all of us are flawed and imperfect in various ways, but that’s a guy who puts truth above politics and ideology regardless of anything one may or may not agree with. And there are certainly some things I disagree with. He’s a bit like the new George Carlin of our time. Which reminds me, I don’t advise spending time on the occasional pure comedy bits consisting of impersonations, just the many videos covering the serious topics of our day. And one of the best though also flawed truth tellers and “real journalists” out there I also highly recommend is Caitlin Johnstone.
In closing for now, just thought I’d add that it’s great to be “independent,” “nonpartisan,” and seeking truth.
Joseph Peterson says
Thanks for the comments, John.
I don’t mind that you partly disagree with me. That’s normal. And healthy, since you do it with good will. Productive disagreement is what drives all human progress.
Just to clarify, I was using the word “progressive” only as a label for people on the political left – in much the same ways as “conservative” tends to be applied to people on the political right. People often apply those labels to themselves to say which side they’re on. And I meant it in that generally accepted way.
Of course, both sides want progress (in whichever direction they happen to consider “forward”). And both sides want to conserve something traditional. So-called progressives can be backward and reactionary. And so-called conservatives often turn their backs on history and custom. These labels shouldn’t be taken literally.
So i guess epik is trying to avoid taxes by funneling money to offshore accounts?
I guess what it is, it’s PayPal trying to play politics. Epik supports free speech by hosting “controversial” websites, and this leftist scum love to cenzor, ban and control. The suppression of the 100% confirmed Biden’s corruption is just unbelievable. Freedom of speech is gone in America, although Trump will win again, and then I hope this will be his priority.
Joseph Peterson says
Why put “controversial” in quotation marks – as if there were no controversy with websites such as Gab? Even if you personally find nothing on that site objectionable – not even the racist, violent content of someone who went on to massacre people in Pittsburgh – you should be aware that many do consider that stuff terrible. Moreover, there has been a considerable public furor concerning that website. Objectively, that makes it controversial.
Everybody who worked at Epik once that domain was transferred in – including Rob – was acutely aware that it was controversial. So why pretend it’s not?
I won’t address the rest of your remarks because we drastically disagree, and I don’t think there is any chance of persuading you that something you believe is less than “100% confirmed”. But I think you can at least acknowledge the very real controversy around Gab, etc.