I spent done time digging through the posts (and researching the view points). My conclusion: This article and the Twitter posts feel like an advertisement for

I spent done time digging through the posts (and researching the view points). My conclusion: This article and the Twitter posts feel like an advertisement for Gab. It's currently building a userbase, primarily from people banned from Twitter for expressing extreme views. In this case it's capitalizing on a very well known user, a stance supporting the user, and the user self censoring. Something feels off (see my quote). This is timed around Gab seeking funding (see Twitter: https://mobile.twitter.com/getongab/status/1027550072932851713 https://mobile.twitter.com/getongab/status/10275500729328517...) I suspect further exposure will push Gab to censor. However in the interim: it will grow based on the controversy to ban/remain open quoting my own reply >Researching Gab: the posts from Gab was immediately followed by a funding request. Users pointing out how it appears to be "Twitter for racists" add (cherry picked) posts highlighting the advocation of destruction if Jewish memorials (and enslavement of the Jewish people). >To comment on the article: this appears to be shining the sun on what appears a racist bastion advocating violence. (I might be wrong. Gab didn't remove the posts, the user did) Or to rephrase Microsoft's threat as I'm seeing it: if [Gab] does not remove a post [advocating violence] , Gab must seek hosting on another platform. >So which strategy worked? Ban or exposure? For Microsoft? For Gab? For the user? >I don't know that the answer is the same for each group. I suspect given the article, exposure pushed Microsoft to push for a ban. A ban pressured the user, by thinking their platform. So where does Gab stand?