10 ms·

Gab.com goes down after GoDaddy threatens to pull domain

atlasunshrugged 8y ago
"Gab is presently inaccessible through its website, with a message stating that the company is “under attack” and “working around the clock to get Gab.com back online” with a new provider. “We have been smeared by the mainstream media for defending free expression and individual liberty for all people and for working with law enforcement to ensure that justice is served for the horrible atrocity committed in Pittsburgh,” the statement reads."
ChrisGranger 8y ago
http://gab.ai/ http://gab.ai/ has their full statement.
- russelldc 8y ago
  > We have been smeared by the mainstream media [...] for working with law enforcement to ensure that justice is served for the horrible atrocity committed in Pittsburgh That's quite an interesting spin.
  - Zuider 8y ago
    If you believe this statement is false, I would be most interested in understanding why you think so.
    - noeatnosleep 8y ago
      Do you really believe the reason they're being smeared is that they've cooperated with law enforcement?
      - Zuider 8y ago
        Yes, I do. They discovered the murderer's profile and reached out to law enforcement with the details, including his chilling statement of intent. They could have silently deleted the profile and deflected criticism from themselves.
        Max_Mustermann 8y ago
        No, they couldn't have silently hidden everything. There are archival links that people could (and did, IIRC) post.
        Zuider 8y ago
        I am not aware of anything resembling 'archival links' other than screenshots of only the most recent posts, and verbal reports from others as to past posts.
        Max_Mustermann 8y ago
        archive.li/k63LE
        Zuider 8y ago
        One single page of vileness. No 'likes' to his posts, so not very popular. Notable is the anti-Trump sentiment. Not enough to confirm that this profile actually belonged to Robert Brower since names and profile pictures can be misappropriated. Meanwhile, Gab was able to provide a complete profile of this individual and confirmation of his identity to the authorities.
        anarazel 8y ago
        > Meanwhile, Gab was able to provide a complete profile of this individual and confirmation of his identity to the authorities. This repeatedly has been presented as an achievement. How on earth isn't that the absolute absolute basic thing? That ANY service is going to do?
    - anarazel 8y ago
      Because the criticism by mainstream media obviously isn't that they're cooperating with law-enforcement (if they are), but that they're very willing to host a lot of the awful stuff. They're just trying to stoke the flame. Look at the stuff they're tweeting https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1056266704148262912 https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1056266704148262912 https://twitter.com/ClenchedFisk/status/1027690034718224384?s=20 https://twitter.com/ClenchedFisk/status/1027690034718224384?...
      - Zuider 8y ago
        Details matter. They alerted law enforcement to Robert Bowers' profile before the police or the public knew about it, and certainly before criticism from the mainstream media. They could quite plausibly covered this up seeing Gab.com does not have a wide user base.
        anarazel 8y ago
        The profile had been discovered before they removed the contents. A few people / journos downloaded the contents. So no, they couldn't have covered this up.
        Zuider 8y ago
        The full profile had been given to law enforcement before its removal from public view. It was removed, as is routine for such profiles, in order to prevent copycat murders.
    - shrikant 8y ago
      I wonder if you're being obtuse, but I'll try to explain anyway (I'm not parent commenter, but let's see if I can capture why they think this statement is spin.) Gab claim they're being smeared for "defending free expression and individual liberty" AND "working with law enforcement". People and organisations attempting to shut Gab down, and/or be critical of them, are assuredly not doing so because Gab are working with law enforcement. That renders Gab's claim spin, as per parent commenter.
      - Zuider 8y ago
        Your argument is mistaken on both counts. The smear and de-platform campaign began when Gab reported the details and profile of the synagogue murderer to law enforcement, providing them with "concrete evidence for a motive that they can use in a case to seek justice against this awful monster." As for the 'people and organizations attempting to shut Gab down, or and/or be critical of them', they are 'assuredly not doing so' on the grounds Gab hosted violent anti-Semitic and extremist material. Otherwise they would express equal outrage at the violent anti-Semitic tweets from Louis Farrakhan, one example among many, who uses the exact same rhetoric as the Pittsburgh shooter. The 'mail bomber' Cesar Sayoc Jr. also made numerous violent threats on twitter. In neither case are there calls to shut Twitter down.
nurino 8y ago
Hope they also close Facebook for this https://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/21/us/facebook-live-gang-rape-chicago/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/21/us/facebook-live-gang-rap...
- shady-lady 8y ago
  https://who.is/whois/facebook.com https://who.is/whois/facebook.com https://registrarsec.com/ https://registrarsec.com/ RegistrarSEC, LLC and RegistrarSafe, LLC are ICANN-accredited registrars formed in Delaware and are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Facebook, Inc.
  - Zuider 8y ago
    Meaning that Facebook wholly owns the infrastructure beneath its web presence, and so it cannot be taken down by a campaign targeting a weak link in its chain of supply?
    - shady-lady 8y ago
      Meaning a private 3rd party domain registrar can't do to facebook what GoDaddy just did to gab.com
- geofft 8y ago
  The argument for taking Gab offline is not and never has been "The terrorist has a Gab account." That's a straw man being pushed by Gab, so they can make this claim about Facebook. The argument is that Gab is a place where terrorists are radicalized, and they welcome that use of their platform, and they have no intention of continuing to exist if they can't do that. This argument meaningfully distinguishes them from Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Reddit, etc., which are also places for terrorists to radicalize, but that's not a purpose that is actively encouraged by the platform. Interesting counterarguments are that Gab is not such a place (although Gab has mostly been saying that terrorist attacks can't be planned on their platform) or that in fact the mainstream social media platforms are also such a place and no distinction can be drawn (I actually think there's an argument to be made about how metrics on engagement cause platforms to optimize for outrage and pithy ideology, but I also think that's qualitatively different from what Gab is doing). That the same person had an account on both sites, irrespective of the content they posted, what others posted, and what content the platform encouraged, is not a relevant counterargument.
DanAndersen 8y ago
Related: Gab had also posted a public statement [0] on Medium after the shooting in Pittsburgh. However, Medium has now suspended Gab from their platform, so that the only way to read the statement is to use an archive link [1]. Hopefully the tech community learns from this about the dangers of using centralized external services for your public presence. If you find yourself under distributed political attack your voice will not make its way out there without being filtered by intermediary media outlets unless you own the full stack of your system from top to bottom. [0] https://medium.com/@getongab/gab-com-statement-on-the-tree-of-life-synagogue-shooting-a6c1de715b39 https://medium.com/@getongab/gab-com-statement-on-the-tree-o... [1] http://archive.is/vysbL http://archive.is/vysbL
- Cthulhu_ 8y ago
  > Hopefully the tech community learns from this about the dangers of using centralized external services for your public presence. Which means... what? Put your stuff on the dark web? Because if you host your own blog - GoDaddy can shut you down. Use an ISP that doesn't do anything? The domain name can be shut down. The internet is full of centralized services.
- Amezarak 8y ago
  Medium's actions seem particularly bizarre and insidious. I can understand why people might believe that Gab should be shut down, even though I disagree (not very strongly - Gab, like Voat with Reddit, was capable only of attracting the worst of Twitter). But Medium appears to believe that defending the existence of a free speech platform is so fundamentally indefensible that it should be impermissible! It also disturbs me how complete and total these lockouts tend to be - if you get put under the wrong spotlight, it's clear how completely and totally the corporate sphere will coordinate to shut you down. You won't even have a platform to defend yourself on, and the situation is getting worse, not better. Short of laying your own fiber cables and creating your own Internet, there's nothing you can do. This makes me very uneasy. I think the NPR interview with the founder of Gab is worth listening to. [1] It strikes me that just a few years ago, most people would have been in support of their position. The world has changed dramatically in just a few years. https://www.npr.org/2018/10/29/661676103/after-synagogue-attack-web-hosting-sites-suspend-gab https://www.npr.org/2018/10/29/661676103/after-synagogue-att...
orf 8y ago
It's funny how those who cry hardest about being censored, when given a completely free space to express themselves, fill it to the brim with xenophobia, racism and anti-Semitism. As much as free speech advocates may decry this, it works. Alex Jones audience has suffered since popular private companies have terminated their relationship with him.
- nailer 8y ago
  You're nut picking [1]. A right wing person that is insane is more likely to use a right wing platform. We shouldn't blame Twitter for insane left wing people killing cops and we shouldn't blame Gab for this right wing attack. [1] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nutpicking https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nutpicking
  - orf 8y ago
    You also seem to be nut picking. I'm not really talking about the extreme ends that can be found on any platform. I am talking about the average discourse, which judging by the most popular posts is an appalling mix of the worst traits of humanity
    - nailer 8y ago
      > You also seem to be but picking. That's not what nut picking is - see https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nutpicking https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nutpicking. I've edited my comment above to add the same link for anyone else unfamiliar with the term. > I am talking about the average discourse That's a good argument - but I can't confirm, I'm not on gab, but as liberal and hence a free speech advocate I follow them on Twitter. Anyone have an archive link to the top posts on Gab?
      - orf 8y ago
        Sorry, I meant literally picking nutcases on a platform rather than the literal sense. That didn't come across well! I saw them yesterday when there was a previous thread here. There was one decrying "liberal insensitivity" just above two saying transexuals are mentally ill and "there are 21 genders, male, female and 19 types of [homosexual slur]". Below that where typical memes about "rivers of filth" walking to the USA right now, etc.
eriken 8y ago
Is there a large enough presence of "non deplorables" on these sites to worry about unnecessary and unintended polarization due to these purges?
- beobab 8y ago
  Your use of the phrase "non deplorables" suggests that polarization exists outside those sites.
- nailer 8y ago
  Honestly: no. I'm a classical liberal and a long time Twitter user, and I intensely dislike Twitter's recent move to the left (Peter Fonda making death threats against the president, Sarah Jeong making a massive series of racist tweets, and Louis Farrakhan comparing Jewish people to termites, all still having Twitter accounts) but gab doesn't appeal since I don't want to be in a right wing vacuum either. Currently Twitter with a long list of block words is about the best I can get.
  - claudiawerner 8y ago
    As someone on the other side of that, I have to agree with your strategy; I'm on the far-left side of Twitter (about as left as it gets) and although my list of blocked words is short (usually to get rid of right-wing posts but liberal ones too sometimes), it's the best I can do without moving to a much smaller platform.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
DanAndersen 8y ago
Also potentially relevant to the tech community here and anyone who works on currently-non-dominant social media platforms: politicians are already demanding that Gab be held criminally liable for the speech and actions of their users. From Howard Dean [0]: >You are a facilitator of neo nazis and other haters. You should be tried for being an accomplice to murder. You’re lucky shutting you down is all you get. [0] https://twitter.com/GovHowardDean/status/1056710782342311938 https://twitter.com/GovHowardDean/status/1056710782342311938
- someone454 8y ago
  Gab can reasonably claim safe-harbor over this. If they are not censoring user’s posts, then they shouldn’t be held liable. Go-Daddy is 100% within their rights to kick Gab off of their service. But silencing certain speech is not, in my opinion, a smart way to prevent atrocities like this in the future.
  - Cthulhu_ 8y ago
    Safe harbor only goes so far; free speech is a thing, yes, but inciting hate and violence is iirc still illegal (IANAL), and if they had gotten reports from it or they could reasonably know about that behaviour on their platform, they can be held liable.
  - candu 8y ago
    As summarized in [1], whether or not they should be held liable is still up for discussion. How the law works and how it should work are two different things, the latter being subject to continuous debate. IMHO, we can at the same time hold that Gab should not be liable for the actions (arguably) resulting from these posts, but that they have a legal responsibility to identify, report, and remove imminent incitements to violence. For instance: one could argue that profiting from such incitements constitutes support / endorsement of said incitements. This is similar in spirit to the "business activity" approach mentioned in the above Wired article. One could also argue that failing to identify and report such incitements is negligence. Are these commonplace interpretations of these legal terms? Perhaps not, but there are some signs of a general recognition that perhaps this should change. "Disruption" and "technology" are not valid reasons to shirk civic responsibility; if you cannot provide your service responsibly, perhaps you shouldn't provide it. After all, we demand the same of engineers who build bridges and contractors who repair houses - because there is demonstrable harm to be done by failing to exercise responsibility. What we're rapidly discovering is that demonstrable harm is equally possible in a digital realm; it makes perfect sense for our understanding of legal responsibility to be updated accordingly. Also IMHO, while it is impossible to "silence" extreme hate speech like this, we should certainly try. The harder it is for neo-Nazis and other militant racists to self-organize, the better. By giving their ilk any kind of easily-accessible platform, we make it that much easier for atrocities like this to be supported, normalized, organized, etc. Sure, we should be very careful as to what we tar with the "militant racist" brush - but there are some very, very, very clearcut examples. [1] https://www.wired.com/2017/01/the-most-important-law-in-tech-has-a-problem/ https://www.wired.com/2017/01/the-most-important-law-in-tech...
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
_trampeltier 8y ago
I don't know Gab. But if they did something illegal, then the police should shutdown the service. Of course the hoster, Domain service or PayPal is free to choose there customer. But in my opinion it's a bad thing to shut down just somebody because somebody don't like there nose or mind. In future, this will be in a cashless world, even more problematic.
vfclists 8y ago
The proper thing to do for Gab.com is to become their own domain registrar, and the same goes for the Daily Stormer and Alec Jones. The hosting issues and the potential DOS attacks they face can be handled separately.
- dexen 8y ago
  >The proper thing to do for Gab.com is to become their own domain registrar ...and payment processor & bank, and hosting provider, and internet access provider. Still could be blocked on DNS resolution level and IP routing level, so better build out alt-Internet while at it. At some point it becomes more cost-efficient to skip the grind of fighting-or-building every service provider tier, and go lobby the legislators for some protections. I, and many others, don't like Gab's speech, going by the 2nd hand accounts of it. Which is exactly why it needs free speech protections from various pressure groups.
  - vfclists 8y ago
    The fact is that service providers in the desire to control content are distorting what an internet connection actually is in the courts, especially when that corporate shill Ajit Pai insists on claiming that internet providers are information service providers rather than providers of dumb pipes who are supposed to link the customers wherever they want to go. Blocking at the DNS level and routing level is technically a breach of the contract with the customer, because an internet service is simply an agreement to connect your equipment to an IP address, and the providers are in breach of contract when they do that.
    - dexen 8y ago
      >Blocking at the DNS level and routing level is technically a breach of the contract with the customer, (...) A salient point. Throw in "False advertising", because they advertise providing providing Internet access but instead provide their own "walled garden internet" access. I would add that it should also strip the ISPs of their safe harbor protections[1] if they choose to perform editorial function of the Internet's content, instead of being providers of dumb pipes. If they want to editorialize, sure, by all means, go for it - but play by the relevant legal rules. How about this: when an ISP is found to have excercised editorial control of the internet, we penalize the ISP by stripping of save harbor protections[1] for 1 years into the future, and also deem them to have willingly rescinded the save harbor protections[1] during the whole period they were making editorial choices? Effectively making the editorializing ISPs liable for every single copyright infringement, libel, and any other relevant transgression that went on their platform while they were performing editorializing, and would be otherwise shielded from if they were proper dumb pipes. Let the ISPs decide whethey they want editorial control, or safe harbor protections. No more Schrödinger's ISPs holding on to both privileges that are supposed to be mutually exclusive. [1] DMCA 512, aka Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, and any other relevant.
new_guy 8y ago
This is amazing free publicity for them. But what it really is is Torbas's exit. He'd never get acquired by SV so he's taking his donations and running. GAB basically deplatformed themselves, they waded into the shooter debate by willingly handing over all their info to the Feds and then shouting about it and made such a stink that every company that deals with them had to distance themselves i.e 'deplatforming' them, there's zero reason for them to be offline now. It's either publicity or an exit, or both.
pictur 8y ago
What does this site do? Is it one of the ridiculous free speech sites?

"Gab is presently inaccessible through its website, with a message stating that the company is “under attack” and “working around the clock to get Gab.com back online” with a new provider. “We have been smeared by the mainstream media for defending free expression and individual liberty for all people and for working with law enforcement to ensure that justice is served for the horrible atrocity committed in Pittsburgh,” the statement reads."

ChrisGranger 8y ago

http://gab.ai/ http://gab.ai/ has their full statement.

russelldc 8y ago
> We have been smeared by the mainstream media [...] for working with law enforcement to ensure that justice is served for the horrible atrocity committed in Pittsburgh That's quite an interesting spin.
- Zuider 8y ago
  If you believe this statement is false, I would be most interested in understanding why you think so.
  - noeatnosleep 8y ago
    Do you really believe the reason they're being smeared is that they've cooperated with law enforcement?
    - Zuider 8y ago
      Yes, I do. They discovered the murderer's profile and reached out to law enforcement with the details, including his chilling statement of intent. They could have silently deleted the profile and deflected criticism from themselves.
      - Max_Mustermann 8y ago
        No, they couldn't have silently hidden everything. There are archival links that people could (and did, IIRC) post.
        Zuider 8y ago
        I am not aware of anything resembling 'archival links' other than screenshots of only the most recent posts, and verbal reports from others as to past posts.
        Max_Mustermann 8y ago
        archive.li/k63LE
        Zuider 8y ago
        One single page of vileness. No 'likes' to his posts, so not very popular. Notable is the anti-Trump sentiment. Not enough to confirm that this profile actually belonged to Robert Brower since names and profile pictures can be misappropriated. Meanwhile, Gab was able to provide a complete profile of this individual and confirmation of his identity to the authorities.
        anarazel 8y ago
        > Meanwhile, Gab was able to provide a complete profile of this individual and confirmation of his identity to the authorities. This repeatedly has been presented as an achievement. How on earth isn't that the absolute absolute basic thing? That ANY service is going to do?
  - anarazel 8y ago
    Because the criticism by mainstream media obviously isn't that they're cooperating with law-enforcement (if they are), but that they're very willing to host a lot of the awful stuff. They're just trying to stoke the flame. Look at the stuff they're tweeting https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1056266704148262912 https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1056266704148262912 https://twitter.com/ClenchedFisk/status/1027690034718224384?s=20 https://twitter.com/ClenchedFisk/status/1027690034718224384?...
    - Zuider 8y ago
      Details matter. They alerted law enforcement to Robert Bowers' profile before the police or the public knew about it, and certainly before criticism from the mainstream media. They could quite plausibly covered this up seeing Gab.com does not have a wide user base.
      - anarazel 8y ago
        The profile had been discovered before they removed the contents. A few people / journos downloaded the contents. So no, they couldn't have covered this up.
        Zuider 8y ago
        The full profile had been given to law enforcement before its removal from public view. It was removed, as is routine for such profiles, in order to prevent copycat murders.
  - shrikant 8y ago
    I wonder if you're being obtuse, but I'll try to explain anyway (I'm not parent commenter, but let's see if I can capture why they think this statement is spin.) Gab claim they're being smeared for "defending free expression and individual liberty" AND "working with law enforcement". People and organisations attempting to shut Gab down, and/or be critical of them, are assuredly not doing so because Gab are working with law enforcement. That renders Gab's claim spin, as per parent commenter.
    - Zuider 8y ago
      Your argument is mistaken on both counts. The smear and de-platform campaign began when Gab reported the details and profile of the synagogue murderer to law enforcement, providing them with "concrete evidence for a motive that they can use in a case to seek justice against this awful monster." As for the 'people and organizations attempting to shut Gab down, or and/or be critical of them', they are 'assuredly not doing so' on the grounds Gab hosted violent anti-Semitic and extremist material. Otherwise they would express equal outrage at the violent anti-Semitic tweets from Louis Farrakhan, one example among many, who uses the exact same rhetoric as the Pittsburgh shooter. The 'mail bomber' Cesar Sayoc Jr. also made numerous violent threats on twitter. In neither case are there calls to shut Twitter down.

nurino 8y ago

Hope they also close Facebook for this https://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/21/us/facebook-live-gang-rape-chicago/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/21/us/facebook-live-gang-rap...

shady-lady 8y ago
https://who.is/whois/facebook.com https://who.is/whois/facebook.com https://registrarsec.com/ https://registrarsec.com/ RegistrarSEC, LLC and RegistrarSafe, LLC are ICANN-accredited registrars formed in Delaware and are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Facebook, Inc.
- Zuider 8y ago
  Meaning that Facebook wholly owns the infrastructure beneath its web presence, and so it cannot be taken down by a campaign targeting a weak link in its chain of supply?
  - shady-lady 8y ago
    Meaning a private 3rd party domain registrar can't do to facebook what GoDaddy just did to gab.com
geofft 8y ago
The argument for taking Gab offline is not and never has been "The terrorist has a Gab account." That's a straw man being pushed by Gab, so they can make this claim about Facebook. The argument is that Gab is a place where terrorists are radicalized, and they welcome that use of their platform, and they have no intention of continuing to exist if they can't do that. This argument meaningfully distinguishes them from Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Reddit, etc., which are also places for terrorists to radicalize, but that's not a purpose that is actively encouraged by the platform. Interesting counterarguments are that Gab is not such a place (although Gab has mostly been saying that terrorist attacks can't be planned on their platform) or that in fact the mainstream social media platforms are also such a place and no distinction can be drawn (I actually think there's an argument to be made about how metrics on engagement cause platforms to optimize for outrage and pithy ideology, but I also think that's qualitatively different from what Gab is doing). That the same person had an account on both sites, irrespective of the content they posted, what others posted, and what content the platform encouraged, is not a relevant counterargument.

DanAndersen 8y ago

Related: Gab had also posted a public statement [0] on Medium after the shooting in Pittsburgh. However, Medium has now suspended Gab from their platform, so that the only way to read the statement is to use an archive link [1]. Hopefully the tech community learns from this about the dangers of using centralized external services for your public presence. If you find yourself under distributed political attack your voice will not make its way out there without being filtered by intermediary media outlets unless you own the full stack of your system from top to bottom. [0] https://medium.com/@getongab/gab-com-statement-on-the-tree-of-life-synagogue-shooting-a6c1de715b39 https://medium.com/@getongab/gab-com-statement-on-the-tree-o... [1] http://archive.is/vysbL http://archive.is/vysbL

Cthulhu_ 8y ago
> Hopefully the tech community learns from this about the dangers of using centralized external services for your public presence. Which means... what? Put your stuff on the dark web? Because if you host your own blog - GoDaddy can shut you down. Use an ISP that doesn't do anything? The domain name can be shut down. The internet is full of centralized services.
Amezarak 8y ago
Medium's actions seem particularly bizarre and insidious. I can understand why people might believe that Gab should be shut down, even though I disagree (not very strongly - Gab, like Voat with Reddit, was capable only of attracting the worst of Twitter). But Medium appears to believe that defending the existence of a free speech platform is so fundamentally indefensible that it should be impermissible! It also disturbs me how complete and total these lockouts tend to be - if you get put under the wrong spotlight, it's clear how completely and totally the corporate sphere will coordinate to shut you down. You won't even have a platform to defend yourself on, and the situation is getting worse, not better. Short of laying your own fiber cables and creating your own Internet, there's nothing you can do. This makes me very uneasy. I think the NPR interview with the founder of Gab is worth listening to. [1] It strikes me that just a few years ago, most people would have been in support of their position. The world has changed dramatically in just a few years. https://www.npr.org/2018/10/29/661676103/after-synagogue-attack-web-hosting-sites-suspend-gab https://www.npr.org/2018/10/29/661676103/after-synagogue-att...

orf 8y ago

It's funny how those who cry hardest about being censored, when given a completely free space to express themselves, fill it to the brim with xenophobia, racism and anti-Semitism. As much as free speech advocates may decry this, it works. Alex Jones audience has suffered since popular private companies have terminated their relationship with him.

nailer 8y ago
You're nut picking [1]. A right wing person that is insane is more likely to use a right wing platform. We shouldn't blame Twitter for insane left wing people killing cops and we shouldn't blame Gab for this right wing attack. [1] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nutpicking https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nutpicking
- orf 8y ago
  You also seem to be nut picking. I'm not really talking about the extreme ends that can be found on any platform. I am talking about the average discourse, which judging by the most popular posts is an appalling mix of the worst traits of humanity
  - nailer 8y ago
    > You also seem to be but picking. That's not what nut picking is - see https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nutpicking https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nutpicking. I've edited my comment above to add the same link for anyone else unfamiliar with the term. > I am talking about the average discourse That's a good argument - but I can't confirm, I'm not on gab, but as liberal and hence a free speech advocate I follow them on Twitter. Anyone have an archive link to the top posts on Gab?
    - orf 8y ago
      Sorry, I meant literally picking nutcases on a platform rather than the literal sense. That didn't come across well! I saw them yesterday when there was a previous thread here. There was one decrying "liberal insensitivity" just above two saying transexuals are mentally ill and "there are 21 genders, male, female and 19 types of [homosexual slur]". Below that where typical memes about "rivers of filth" walking to the USA right now, etc.

eriken 8y ago

Is there a large enough presence of "non deplorables" on these sites to worry about unnecessary and unintended polarization due to these purges?

beobab 8y ago
Your use of the phrase "non deplorables" suggests that polarization exists outside those sites.
nailer 8y ago
Honestly: no. I'm a classical liberal and a long time Twitter user, and I intensely dislike Twitter's recent move to the left (Peter Fonda making death threats against the president, Sarah Jeong making a massive series of racist tweets, and Louis Farrakhan comparing Jewish people to termites, all still having Twitter accounts) but gab doesn't appeal since I don't want to be in a right wing vacuum either. Currently Twitter with a long list of block words is about the best I can get.
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  As someone on the other side of that, I have to agree with your strategy; I'm on the far-left side of Twitter (about as left as it gets) and although my list of blocked words is short (usually to get rid of right-wing posts but liberal ones too sometimes), it's the best I can do without moving to a much smaller platform.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

DanAndersen 8y ago

Also potentially relevant to the tech community here and anyone who works on currently-non-dominant social media platforms: politicians are already demanding that Gab be held criminally liable for the speech and actions of their users. From Howard Dean [0]: >You are a facilitator of neo nazis and other haters. You should be tried for being an accomplice to murder. You’re lucky shutting you down is all you get. [0] https://twitter.com/GovHowardDean/status/1056710782342311938 https://twitter.com/GovHowardDean/status/1056710782342311938

someone454 8y ago
Gab can reasonably claim safe-harbor over this. If they are not censoring user’s posts, then they shouldn’t be held liable. Go-Daddy is 100% within their rights to kick Gab off of their service. But silencing certain speech is not, in my opinion, a smart way to prevent atrocities like this in the future.
- Cthulhu_ 8y ago
  Safe harbor only goes so far; free speech is a thing, yes, but inciting hate and violence is iirc still illegal (IANAL), and if they had gotten reports from it or they could reasonably know about that behaviour on their platform, they can be held liable.
- candu 8y ago
  As summarized in [1], whether or not they should be held liable is still up for discussion. How the law works and how it should work are two different things, the latter being subject to continuous debate. IMHO, we can at the same time hold that Gab should not be liable for the actions (arguably) resulting from these posts, but that they have a legal responsibility to identify, report, and remove imminent incitements to violence. For instance: one could argue that profiting from such incitements constitutes support / endorsement of said incitements. This is similar in spirit to the "business activity" approach mentioned in the above Wired article. One could also argue that failing to identify and report such incitements is negligence. Are these commonplace interpretations of these legal terms? Perhaps not, but there are some signs of a general recognition that perhaps this should change. "Disruption" and "technology" are not valid reasons to shirk civic responsibility; if you cannot provide your service responsibly, perhaps you shouldn't provide it. After all, we demand the same of engineers who build bridges and contractors who repair houses - because there is demonstrable harm to be done by failing to exercise responsibility. What we're rapidly discovering is that demonstrable harm is equally possible in a digital realm; it makes perfect sense for our understanding of legal responsibility to be updated accordingly. Also IMHO, while it is impossible to "silence" extreme hate speech like this, we should certainly try. The harder it is for neo-Nazis and other militant racists to self-organize, the better. By giving their ilk any kind of easily-accessible platform, we make it that much easier for atrocities like this to be supported, normalized, organized, etc. Sure, we should be very careful as to what we tar with the "militant racist" brush - but there are some very, very, very clearcut examples. [1] https://www.wired.com/2017/01/the-most-important-law-in-tech-has-a-problem/ https://www.wired.com/2017/01/the-most-important-law-in-tech...

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

_trampeltier 8y ago

I don't know Gab. But if they did something illegal, then the police should shutdown the service. Of course the hoster, Domain service or PayPal is free to choose there customer. But in my opinion it's a bad thing to shut down just somebody because somebody don't like there nose or mind. In future, this will be in a cashless world, even more problematic.

vfclists 8y ago

The proper thing to do for Gab.com is to become their own domain registrar, and the same goes for the Daily Stormer and Alec Jones. The hosting issues and the potential DOS attacks they face can be handled separately.

dexen 8y ago
>The proper thing to do for Gab.com is to become their own domain registrar ...and payment processor & bank, and hosting provider, and internet access provider. Still could be blocked on DNS resolution level and IP routing level, so better build out alt-Internet while at it. At some point it becomes more cost-efficient to skip the grind of fighting-or-building every service provider tier, and go lobby the legislators for some protections. I, and many others, don't like Gab's speech, going by the 2nd hand accounts of it. Which is exactly why it needs free speech protections from various pressure groups.
- vfclists 8y ago
  The fact is that service providers in the desire to control content are distorting what an internet connection actually is in the courts, especially when that corporate shill Ajit Pai insists on claiming that internet providers are information service providers rather than providers of dumb pipes who are supposed to link the customers wherever they want to go. Blocking at the DNS level and routing level is technically a breach of the contract with the customer, because an internet service is simply an agreement to connect your equipment to an IP address, and the providers are in breach of contract when they do that.
  - dexen 8y ago
    >Blocking at the DNS level and routing level is technically a breach of the contract with the customer, (...) A salient point. Throw in "False advertising", because they advertise providing providing Internet access but instead provide their own "walled garden internet" access. I would add that it should also strip the ISPs of their safe harbor protections[1] if they choose to perform editorial function of the Internet's content, instead of being providers of dumb pipes. If they want to editorialize, sure, by all means, go for it - but play by the relevant legal rules. How about this: when an ISP is found to have excercised editorial control of the internet, we penalize the ISP by stripping of save harbor protections[1] for 1 years into the future, and also deem them to have willingly rescinded the save harbor protections[1] during the whole period they were making editorial choices? Effectively making the editorializing ISPs liable for every single copyright infringement, libel, and any other relevant transgression that went on their platform while they were performing editorializing, and would be otherwise shielded from if they were proper dumb pipes. Let the ISPs decide whethey they want editorial control, or safe harbor protections. No more Schrödinger's ISPs holding on to both privileges that are supposed to be mutually exclusive. [1] DMCA 512, aka Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, and any other relevant.

new_guy 8y ago

This is amazing free publicity for them. But what it really is is Torbas's exit. He'd never get acquired by SV so he's taking his donations and running. GAB basically deplatformed themselves, they waded into the shooter debate by willingly handing over all their info to the Feds and then shouting about it and made such a stink that every company that deals with them had to distance themselves i.e 'deplatforming' them, there's zero reason for them to be offline now. It's either publicity or an exit, or both.

pictur 8y ago

What does this site do? Is it one of the ridiculous free speech sites?