6 ms·

Gab is a free speech platform. Free speech != white supremacist

by jesssse 8y ago

nkkollaw 8y ago
Free speech is free speech. Even if you don't like what people say (or perhaps specially when you don't like it).
mikeash 8y ago
Alt-right conspiracy nuts != free speech.
- sneak 8y ago
  How do you figure?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - mikeash 8y ago
    They’re different concepts, and disassociating with alt-right conspiracy nutcases is unrelated to free speech.
    - DuskStar 8y ago
      Banning alt-right conspiracy theory nutcases might just be related to free speech, however. And that's what most people seem to want Gab to do.
      - beatgammit 8y ago
        Yes, it's related to free speech, but I just want to point out that it has nothing to do with the US first amendment protections and likely has nothing to do with free speech laws in other areas as well, since those only restrict what government can do. Choosing to disassociate from speech you don't like is yet another use of free speech, as is banning groups that use speech you don't like from your private platform. So yeah, gab, Reddit, and Facebook are exercising their right to free speech.
        sneak 8y ago
        I think you may be confusing “government infringement upon free speech rights” and the much wider concept of “free speech” in general, which is the ability, provided by common spaces and a soap box, or printing presses, and now by the internet, that permits someone with something to say to reach their audience who wishes to hear them. There are a lot more people who have the ability to shut down a website, regardless of hosting company choice, than have the ability to shut down dissemination of a flyer or stop a speaker from speaking. Yes, a TOS is freedom of association. That doesn’t mean it’s a good thing for society when unpopular speech gets banned from every web host they use, in order.
        mikeash 8y ago
        It’s an interesting question. Speech on the internet does seem to depend on the cooperation of big companies in a way that isn’t seen in other realms. However, this seems to be drifting off topic. Gab’s web site didn’t get shut down, they just got cut off by a payment processor.
        SamReidHughes 8y ago
        Well now the web site’s getting kicked off Joyent. And, you know, I want the right to choose who I host and who I don’t host if I ran a hosting company. And I’d be happy to host conspiracy theorying white nationalists, but I wouldn’t want to have to transmit child porn wedding cake payments if that were legal.
        sneak 8y ago
        Their web site is indeed being shut down. :/ I hate Gab and all the nazis they host, but I am troubled about the difficulty in hosting the wider category of unpopular speech.
- meowface 8y ago
  Gab may have a large number of alt-right conspiracy nuts, but they also have a lot of users who rightfully mock those nutty people. It really is a platform for pure free speech. Unfortunately, its polarization was inevitable as Twitter and Reddit started cracking down on far-right users, leaving only pure free speech websites left for the crazies. But suggesting the website itself condones violence or sympathizes with neo-Nazis isn't accurate. Per tptacek's comments, the founder does appear to be an asshole, but that doesn't make him a neo-Nazi.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    I don't know what "neo-Nazi" means to you, but if you'd like, we can refine our terminology and simply talk about "white supremacists and anti-Semites", at which point if will become very difficult for you to argue that the site doesn't "condone or sympathize with" those forces.
    - atomical 8y ago
      > Sam Altman is the CEO of YC. I said that YC kicked out Andrew Torba for harassing batchmates. And lo, there's the CEO of YC, on a Hacker News thread, saying he kicked out Andrew Torba for harassing batchmates. There's probably nothing more to be said about it here. Ah yes, be dishonest about what was in the thread. Did you even read it?
  - pvg 8y ago
    suggesting the website itself condones violence or sympathizes with neo-Nazis isn't accurate. It's pretty accurate. They sound like Nazis. Take a look at https://twitter.com/ClenchedFisk/status/1027690034718224384 https://twitter.com/ClenchedFisk/status/1027690034718224384 https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1056332670513233920 https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1056332670513233920 https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1056266704148262912 https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1056266704148262912
    - meowface 8y ago
      Ok, I didn't see these. You're right. Whoever controls that Twitter account is definitely very alt-right and possibly sympathizes with Nazis. I take back what I said.
Dylan16807 8y ago
It's possible to focus on free speech without encouraging white supremacists. That doesn't seem to be Gab's goal.
- splintercell 8y ago
  How, I would love to hear solutions. People like asparagirl will not join a free speech platform because her speech isn't really restricted from the non-free speech platforms. The people who have the biggest incentive to join these platforms are the one which are kicked out from all the other networks.
  - matt4077 8y ago
    The ACLU seems like a worthwhile cause for actual advocates of free speech. And no, they don't only advocate for liberal causes. Campaign finance laws would be one area of policy where they have starkly different ideas than the political left. As to these platforms: the whole argument is essentially build on this slippery-slope fallacy that banning vile racism, anti-semitism, etc. inexorably leads more restrictions on speech, and (eventually) the end democracy. That's demonstrably false: there have always been restrictions on speech (such as obscenity laws), so there really isn't some bright red line that would be crossed, and these restrictions have also not lead to the end of free speech. There are restrictions on almost any other activity if you expand your definitions to the extremes: the right of peaceful assembly is just as central to democracy, but nobody is bothered by the restriction that you can't hold your protest in the Oval Office. So maybe these people should consider being kicked out of all these platforms not as an incentive to change platforms, but to rather think about how far they must have removed themselves from society. Seriously: if the people who think youtube comments are worth it ban you, it's time to start listening more and posting less.
    - splintercell 8y ago
      I am very confused by your response, it seems like you're responding to what you think I said rather than what I actually said. I am saying that if you create a product NEW, and hope to lure away people from product OLD, the only people who will migrate to the new platform are the people who have problem with product OLD which product NEW solves for them. In case of the 'free speech' platforms, the group which has the problem and need of 'free speech' are the ones which are restricted in their speech.

Gab is a free speech platform. Free speech != white supremacist

nkkollaw 8y ago

Free speech is free speech. Even if you don't like what people say (or perhaps specially when you don't like it).

mikeash 8y ago

Alt-right conspiracy nuts != free speech.

sneak 8y ago
How do you figure?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- mikeash 8y ago
  They’re different concepts, and disassociating with alt-right conspiracy nutcases is unrelated to free speech.
  - DuskStar 8y ago
    Banning alt-right conspiracy theory nutcases might just be related to free speech, however. And that's what most people seem to want Gab to do.
    - beatgammit 8y ago
      Yes, it's related to free speech, but I just want to point out that it has nothing to do with the US first amendment protections and likely has nothing to do with free speech laws in other areas as well, since those only restrict what government can do. Choosing to disassociate from speech you don't like is yet another use of free speech, as is banning groups that use speech you don't like from your private platform. So yeah, gab, Reddit, and Facebook are exercising their right to free speech.
      - sneak 8y ago
        I think you may be confusing “government infringement upon free speech rights” and the much wider concept of “free speech” in general, which is the ability, provided by common spaces and a soap box, or printing presses, and now by the internet, that permits someone with something to say to reach their audience who wishes to hear them. There are a lot more people who have the ability to shut down a website, regardless of hosting company choice, than have the ability to shut down dissemination of a flyer or stop a speaker from speaking. Yes, a TOS is freedom of association. That doesn’t mean it’s a good thing for society when unpopular speech gets banned from every web host they use, in order.
        mikeash 8y ago
        It’s an interesting question. Speech on the internet does seem to depend on the cooperation of big companies in a way that isn’t seen in other realms. However, this seems to be drifting off topic. Gab’s web site didn’t get shut down, they just got cut off by a payment processor.
        SamReidHughes 8y ago
        Well now the web site’s getting kicked off Joyent. And, you know, I want the right to choose who I host and who I don’t host if I ran a hosting company. And I’d be happy to host conspiracy theorying white nationalists, but I wouldn’t want to have to transmit child porn wedding cake payments if that were legal.
        sneak 8y ago
        Their web site is indeed being shut down. :/ I hate Gab and all the nazis they host, but I am troubled about the difficulty in hosting the wider category of unpopular speech.
meowface 8y ago
Gab may have a large number of alt-right conspiracy nuts, but they also have a lot of users who rightfully mock those nutty people. It really is a platform for pure free speech. Unfortunately, its polarization was inevitable as Twitter and Reddit started cracking down on far-right users, leaving only pure free speech websites left for the crazies. But suggesting the website itself condones violence or sympathizes with neo-Nazis isn't accurate. Per tptacek's comments, the founder does appear to be an asshole, but that doesn't make him a neo-Nazi.
- tptacek 8y ago
  I don't know what "neo-Nazi" means to you, but if you'd like, we can refine our terminology and simply talk about "white supremacists and anti-Semites", at which point if will become very difficult for you to argue that the site doesn't "condone or sympathize with" those forces.
  - atomical 8y ago
    > Sam Altman is the CEO of YC. I said that YC kicked out Andrew Torba for harassing batchmates. And lo, there's the CEO of YC, on a Hacker News thread, saying he kicked out Andrew Torba for harassing batchmates. There's probably nothing more to be said about it here. Ah yes, be dishonest about what was in the thread. Did you even read it?
- pvg 8y ago
  suggesting the website itself condones violence or sympathizes with neo-Nazis isn't accurate. It's pretty accurate. They sound like Nazis. Take a look at https://twitter.com/ClenchedFisk/status/1027690034718224384 https://twitter.com/ClenchedFisk/status/1027690034718224384 https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1056332670513233920 https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1056332670513233920 https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1056266704148262912 https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1056266704148262912
  - meowface 8y ago
    Ok, I didn't see these. You're right. Whoever controls that Twitter account is definitely very alt-right and possibly sympathizes with Nazis. I take back what I said.

Dylan16807 8y ago

It's possible to focus on free speech without encouraging white supremacists. That doesn't seem to be Gab's goal.

splintercell 8y ago
How, I would love to hear solutions. People like asparagirl will not join a free speech platform because her speech isn't really restricted from the non-free speech platforms. The people who have the biggest incentive to join these platforms are the one which are kicked out from all the other networks.
- matt4077 8y ago
  The ACLU seems like a worthwhile cause for actual advocates of free speech. And no, they don't only advocate for liberal causes. Campaign finance laws would be one area of policy where they have starkly different ideas than the political left. As to these platforms: the whole argument is essentially build on this slippery-slope fallacy that banning vile racism, anti-semitism, etc. inexorably leads more restrictions on speech, and (eventually) the end democracy. That's demonstrably false: there have always been restrictions on speech (such as obscenity laws), so there really isn't some bright red line that would be crossed, and these restrictions have also not lead to the end of free speech. There are restrictions on almost any other activity if you expand your definitions to the extremes: the right of peaceful assembly is just as central to democracy, but nobody is bothered by the restriction that you can't hold your protest in the Oval Office. So maybe these people should consider being kicked out of all these platforms not as an incentive to change platforms, but to rather think about how far they must have removed themselves from society. Seriously: if the people who think youtube comments are worth it ban you, it's time to start listening more and posting less.
  - splintercell 8y ago
    I am very confused by your response, it seems like you're responding to what you think I said rather than what I actually said. I am saying that if you create a product NEW, and hope to lure away people from product OLD, the only people who will migrate to the new platform are the people who have problem with product OLD which product NEW solves for them. In case of the 'free speech' platforms, the group which has the problem and need of 'free speech' are the ones which are restricted in their speech.