zlacker

>>cbtacy+(OP)
Anonymous strikes again, this time with a well known web registration company with a decade of data. This is a blatant example how poor security management leads to the hardship of thousands if not millions of regular people. Now their private details have a risk of being public and fully open to scrutiny. And its not just some simple data breach they allegedly stole domain purchases and transfers, account credentials of pretty much all their clients. Unacceptable. Embarrassing. They should be held accountable for all this if it comes out to be true.

>>jungle+fZ
Epik’s lack of security is the least damning thing about Epik.

Google around for their very colorful history. These are bad hombres.

>>qetern+b71
Could you share something damning instead of referring people to search, as we probably will find different information.

As far as I can tell, Epik focused on hosting and DNS management for marginalized/excluded groups on the internet, so naturally they attract a lot of groups. Not sure why that'd be bad though.

Things like this also makes me actually like the company more:

> Pharmaceutical watchdog website LegitScript reported in 2018 that they had alerted Epik to the sale of illegal drugs and counterfeit medications on websites registered by Epik, and that Epik had refused to act upon the information without a court order

That's exactly how I want my hosting company to act, and any that don't are actively fragile.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epik_(company)

>>capabl+Cd1
Remember when a guy murdered 11 people in a Pittsburgh synagogue? When it was revealed the shooter had posted about it on Gab beforehand, every service powering the social network pulled the plug. Epik was who brought them back online.[0]

The hero of hate speech is not exactly a sterling reputation to have.

[0] https://www.wired.com/story/how-right-wing-social-media-site...

>>leland+Ql1
I actually agree with the comment above: good speech doesn’t usually need defending…it’s almost always bad speech that does. But then again, I tend to side with free speech maximalists.

Rob Monster and crew are bad people because they actually believe this rhetoric, that’s why they defend it. They aren’t taking on a noble cause of defending free speech. They are defending speech with which they agree, and tends to be pretty shitty…that’s why they’re bad.

I don’t think they should be forced to stop, in fact I really hope the 1A is never diluted to that level. But the 1A cuts both ways: we get to sit back and talk about how awful Rob Monster is.