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 c

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.