6 ms·

If you believe this statement is false, I would be most interested in understanding why you think so.

by Zuider 8y ago

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?
        Zuider 8y ago
        Not just any service. For instance, Apple refused to assist the FBI in unlocking the iPhone belonging to one of the late prime suspects in the San Bernadino massacre. Wikileaks is refusing to co-operate with the CIA. Microsoft is resisting the FBIs demand to conduct so-called 'sneak and peek' searches on emails held on foreign servers. Bowers also had profiles on Twitter and facebook which were probably just as nasty, but we are not hearing any calls to shut those services down.
        anarazel 8y ago
        > Not just any service. For instance, Apple refused to assist the FBI in unlocking the iPhone belonging to one of the late prime suspects in the San Bernadino massacre. Wikileaks is refusing to co-operate with the CIA. Microsoft is resisting the FBIs demand to conduct so-called 'sneak and peek' searches on emails held on foreign servers. Oh, for crying out loud. These are absolutely apples and oranges. Apple refusing to unlock - wasn't about disclosing readily available data; in this case we're talking about public and payments data. Microsoft v US has been mooted by a change of the relevant laws. Wikileaks, wait, what? > Bowers also had profiles on Twitter and facebook which were probably just as nasty, but we are not hearing any calls to shut those services down. Yes. Their monitoring isn't great, but they do some. Not comparable.
        Zuider 8y ago
        You said: >That ANY service is going to [provide the data on a suspect to law enforcement]? Are the aforementioned not services? >Apple refusing to unlock - wasn't about disclosing readily available data; They refused to provide information required by the FBI to investigate an extremist attack. And there was data that was not readily available to the public in the Bowers' profile. > Microsoft v US has been mooted by a change of the relevant laws So what? It was still data that law enforcement wished to acquire in order to investigate criminal activity, in this case organized crime. >Wikileaks, wait, what? I am sure the authorities are very interested in who was responsible for leaking classified information. Something Wikileaks refuses to provide. >Yes. Their monitoring isn't great, but they do some. Not comparable. 'Not comparable'? Louis Farrakhan's anti-Semitic rants are directly 'comparable' for one, and he is not alone. Twitter's 'monitors' appear to be more concerned with influencing elections than removing extremist content. Also, try searching Youtube for 'six gorillion' or 'six million lies'. Reporting the content that is revealed appears to be completely ineffective. Again, such 'censorship' as is done is largely concerned with influencing elections.
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.

If you believe this statement is false, I would be most interested in understanding why you think so.

by 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?
        Zuider 8y ago
        Not just any service. For instance, Apple refused to assist the FBI in unlocking the iPhone belonging to one of the late prime suspects in the San Bernadino massacre. Wikileaks is refusing to co-operate with the CIA. Microsoft is resisting the FBIs demand to conduct so-called 'sneak and peek' searches on emails held on foreign servers. Bowers also had profiles on Twitter and facebook which were probably just as nasty, but we are not hearing any calls to shut those services down.
        anarazel 8y ago
        > Not just any service. For instance, Apple refused to assist the FBI in unlocking the iPhone belonging to one of the late prime suspects in the San Bernadino massacre. Wikileaks is refusing to co-operate with the CIA. Microsoft is resisting the FBIs demand to conduct so-called 'sneak and peek' searches on emails held on foreign servers. Oh, for crying out loud. These are absolutely apples and oranges. Apple refusing to unlock - wasn't about disclosing readily available data; in this case we're talking about public and payments data. Microsoft v US has been mooted by a change of the relevant laws. Wikileaks, wait, what? > Bowers also had profiles on Twitter and facebook which were probably just as nasty, but we are not hearing any calls to shut those services down. Yes. Their monitoring isn't great, but they do some. Not comparable.
        Zuider 8y ago
        You said: >That ANY service is going to [provide the data on a suspect to law enforcement]? Are the aforementioned not services? >Apple refusing to unlock - wasn't about disclosing readily available data; They refused to provide information required by the FBI to investigate an extremist attack. And there was data that was not readily available to the public in the Bowers' profile. > Microsoft v US has been mooted by a change of the relevant laws So what? It was still data that law enforcement wished to acquire in order to investigate criminal activity, in this case organized crime. >Wikileaks, wait, what? I am sure the authorities are very interested in who was responsible for leaking classified information. Something Wikileaks refuses to provide. >Yes. Their monitoring isn't great, but they do some. Not comparable. 'Not comparable'? Louis Farrakhan's anti-Semitic rants are directly 'comparable' for one, and he is not alone. Twitter's 'monitors' appear to be more concerned with influencing elections than removing extremist content. Also, try searching Youtube for 'six gorillion' or 'six million lies'. Reporting the content that is revealed appears to be completely ineffective. Again, such 'censorship' as is done is largely concerned with influencing elections.

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.