4 ms·

Characterizing this kind of thing as just "I don't like what you said" is not being honest with your argument.

• inevitable2 8y ago
  It is pretty honest in my book. In looking at Patrick's Gab posts, he is clearly an anti-Semite (I don't condone) but given there is no evidence in this article of what was actually said we're missing the context. Gab on their twitter states it was due to a 'phishing urls'[1] and not calls to violence. I know in the article they state "‘complete eradication'" in as a quote from microsoft as part of the reasoning, but if that is true than why would they mark it as phishing to Gab and then make that statement to the hill? The article doesn't fully add up. In looking at Gab's community guidelines they prohibit calls to violence and threats to people (ie things not protected by the 1st)[2]. I will take Gab on good faith that they would adhere to the values in free speech (1st amendment) and remove posts or ban a user if they violate these terms. If they were in violation I would assume they would have removed the posts and/or banned the user and responded to microsoft staying so. [1] https://twitter.com/scottbudman/status/1027612769913253888 https://twitter.com/scottbudman/status/1027612769913253888 [2] https://gab.ai/about/guidelines https://gab.ai/about/guidelines