[Resolved] Domain Registrar & Epik's Seizure

Should we sue Epik LLC?

  • Yes, I'll chip in.

    Votes: 1,709 55.2%
  • Yes, but I'm broke.

    Votes: 1,220 39.4%
  • No.

    Votes: 79 2.6%
  • No, but I'll chip in regardless.

    Votes: 86 2.8%

  • Total voters
    3,094
DropKiwifarms just shit out this:
View attachment 5662473
Link / Archive

Although, people think Epik is still crazy (good).
View attachment 5662482
sopranos over back.jpg
It is all extremely weird. Seeing Epik's representative off their meds and flailing about like a moron is at least entertaining though. The Fongers are right to distance themselves from Epik as if they're dealing with a raving-mad shit-encrusted homeless man. They've behaved in the dumbest way possible, earning themselves a serious lawsuit that they seem, on its fact anyway, almost guaranteed to lose. They've took their win of illegitimately deplatforming KF and turned it into pure loss. And for what? KF still stands, fast and accessible as ever. Not only do they look like pathetic losers, but also appear indefensibly insane as well. Great work, retards, you've shot yourselves in the groin!

If this is some kind of 4D trap than my theory is that liz or some other penis-less entity is going to pour money into the lawsuit and use Epik as a proxy to drain jewshes funds and try to score more indirect wins to harm the site with.
They've been trying to walk it back, so it seems that if it were an ambush, it was ill-executed. All who donate to this fund know what they're getting into anyway. It is a gamble, but it seems like a reasonable, worthwhile one. After all, this is not a small matter limited only to KF: if they can illegitimately/illegally/over-some-bullshit shutter KF, they can do it to any site they find objectionable. In their idiocy, they've allowed a toe-hold to fight back from. This seems like an opportunity worth exploring fully. My shekels are onboard.

20-Years-of-the-Kiwi-2.png
Epik and Mr. Fong have already lost entirely at their primary objectives, consistently so, pathetically so, but that is nothing yet: their days of loss have just begun. As we enter the year of the kiwi, from here on out, nothing but wins.
 
These are both false, and these are both instances of actionable per se defamation. The damage of these claims is inherent in the claim and they are already being parroted by adversaries for the purposes of trying to further erode our ability to find stability and sure footing on the Internet.
Sounds like it would be impossible to prove in court. If you value your time and money, then I'd advise against pursuing legal action.
 
Sounds like it would be impossible to prove in court.
The damages that inherently comes from people claiming that your site hosts CSAM and is being investigated by the feds? How some deranged retards are now running with this claim and spreading it further now that they can claim that a company that provided services for us made it so it must be true? How they now on subsequent tweets admitted to maliciously omitting the fact that guy on the picture is 19 (They themselves censored the information so they must have seen the date)? I'm not a lawyer but this seems like a slam dunk case to me.
 
Epik deleted the tweet posting what they falsely claimed was child porn.

So given the fact there's an archive, doesn't removing it just make them look worse in the long run?

Whoever is behind that account really should read what they type before hitting send, but then I wouldn't get to see this colossal meltdown and I'd...

Probably go do something constructive but fuck if it isn't funny anyways.
 
Not to my knowledge, the tweets in question are still up and any post about it has been only adding gas to the fire.
It also doesn't matter at this point. All deleting the tweets can count for is damage mitigation. That can get them out of punitive damages, but not out of statutory or actual damages.
 
omg. hahah

View attachment 5662746

I don't usually get into KF warfare that much, but this shit...
What the fuck is this nigger on about?

Screenshot_20240124_110048_X.jpg
Archive

First attachment:
20240124_105950.png
Well I mean yes, what Null said here is true? I don't know why the picture underlines the user "Colonel J."

20240124_105952.jpg
Hm.

20240124_105954.png
Where did this one even come from?

Edit: :story:
Screenshot_20240124_111802_X.jpg
Archive
 
Last edited:
Back