3 ms·
The policing of speech got to this level when the site owner expresses no responsibility for contributing to the murderous radicalization of its members.
by kingkawn 8y ago
The policing of speech got to this level when the site owner expresses no responsibility for contributing to the murderous radicalization of its members.
- bassman9000 8y agoFar worse content is seen in Twitter, and they keep their domain. How so. edit: immediate downvoting with no response. Really? So isn't there abhorrent content divulgated by Twitter/Facebook/YouTube/etc? Are any of their domains threatened by it? Any of the downvoters, feel free to engage in discussion.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- jaydz 8y agoThe difference is Twitter is willing to remove the "far worse content" while Gab is not.
- c0brac0bra 8y agoThe shooter's content was scrubbed and gab notified the FBI once they were made aware of it. What else were they supposed to do?
- bassman9000 8y agoIs there any chance they don't yet have the tools to police it? It's taken a fair amount of time and resources for other platforms to do it, to the point that YouTube/Twitter rely on users to do so. And when threatened, they've done so: https://www.geekwire.com/2018/gab-user-deletes-anti-semitic-content-microsoft-azure-threatened-shut-site/ https://www.geekwire.com/2018/gab-user-deletes-anti-semitic-... Again, seems to me we're holding to different standards.
- kingkawn 8y agoIf you read interviews with Gab’s owner you will see there is no intention to mitigate the site’s extremism or radicalization of its members toward violence.
- mikesickler 8y agoThe difference is that the worst stuff you generally see on Twitter is the stuff that is highest-voted content on Gab.