24 ms·

Gab will become a Mastodon fork

91 points by betaveros 7y ago

loceng 7y ago
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_(social_network) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_(social_network) - "Gab is an English-language social media website, launched publicly in 2017, known for its mainly far-right user base.[9] The site has been described as "extremist friendly"[10] or a "safe haven"[11] for neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right.[10] ... Antisemitism is a prominent part of the site's content[24] and the platform itself has engaged in antisemitic commentary.[13][25]" - and so on. I'm curious how the existing Mastodon users feel about this.
- WC3w6pXxgGd 7y ago
  Twitter has WAY more extreme people and expressed viewpoints on its platform than Gab.
- black6 7y ago
  There are existing instances which have been described as “nazi alt-right quadroons” and instance moderators can block other instances, so it’ll probably be business as usual.
- smacktoward 7y ago
  A nice thing about Mastodon/ActivityPub is that administrators of "instances" (which means basically each running copy of the server software; you create a user account with a specific Mastodon instance, rather than with Mastodon itself) can disable federation with individual other instances, if they want to. So if a particular instance becomes a haven for trolls or other miscreants, you can block that entire instance and your users will no longer have to deal anything posted from it. So I suspect that, if Gab really does become an ActivityPub instance, many other instances will just de-federate from them and that will be that.
  - loceng 7y ago
    Okay cool. I wonder does that mean Gab is able to use and benefit from any apps/tools created for Mastodon instances - or would it be possible for the owners of those apps/tools themselves to block/prevent certain instances from benefiting? I'd hope that's the case so everyone has the ability to 'vote' for who they are supporting.
    - smacktoward 7y ago
      > I wonder does that mean Gab is able to use and benefit from any apps/tools created for Mastodon instances Theoretically, yes. If Gab becomes an ActivityPub instance, and you have an account on Gab, you should be able to use any ActivityPub client software to connect to it. Since all ActivityPub instances are supposed to implement the same API, clients are essentially agnostic as to which particular instance they're connecting to. It's kind of like how you can use any mail reader to connect to any IMAP/POP email account. What makes the de-federating thing I mentioned above significant here is that, just because you could use an ActivityPub client to connect to Gab, that doesn't necessarily mean you'd get access to anything in the fediverse outside of Gab. You can only connect to resources outside your instance if your instance is federated with that other one. If other instances refuse to federate with Gab, Gab users would be able to talk with each other and no one else.
    - hedora 7y ago
      Free Software can’t discriminate based on use case, but this was written back before godwin’s law was repealed, so, maybe no one will care that much if freedom zero gets tossed out? sigh https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms: [1] The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). ...
      - johnny22 7y ago
        sure it can. They have the right and ability to only allow connections to specific instances. You'd still have the right to recompile it without such a list though.
- macinjosh 7y ago
  This is a good example of why Wikipedia is not a reliable source for many things. I have used Gab and while it is true there are clearly anti-Semitic users on Gab but there are just as many users who call out that behavior and make fun of the simple mindedness of anti-semitism. Just because a platform is for free speech absolutism doesn't mean the platform itself is bad.
  - anarchy8 7y ago
    > free speech absolutism I just did a cursory glance at Gab and I already found 4 antisemitic posts and that was just on the first page.
- treerock 7y ago
  Given it's a federated service, I doubt many mastadon users will know or care that much. Those that run servers might choose to blacklist them, making them all but invisible.
- layoutIfNeeded 7y ago
  Mastodon is like email. How do email users feel about other people sending nazi stuff via email?
  - rchaud 7y ago
    Depends on where we are in the historical timeline. I remember abandoning Hotmail in 2004 because of just how much spam got through. Gmail's spam filter was leagues ahead, but I think these days they're all pretty good. These things take time to change. There will be an adjustment period during which Gab's hate content will spill over into other Mastodon environments. Like a spam senders list, Mastodon environments will need to continuously update the list of blocked Gab/hate group instances.
    - antepodius 7y ago
      I wonder which side is going to splinter first.
javagram 7y ago
> “Moving to the ActivityPub protocol as our base allows us to get into mobile App Stores without even having to submit and get approval of our own apps, whether Apple and Google like it or not.“ The perils (or benefits?) of open protocols. Existing mastodon/pleroma clients will be able to connect to Gab by adding a server setting. Now I wonder if mastodon client app developers will start filtering the allowed servers users can put in...
- phoe-krk 7y ago
  > Now I wonder if mastodon client app developers will start filtering the allowed servers users can put in... This is not the duty of client applications. Banning instances is the duty of the operators of individual instances, and the instance(s) on which you have your account(s) are the instance(s) whose blocking policy affects you. This is a feature. Most sane instances on the Fediverse already ban extremist and alt-right content, and Gab will be no different in that case - just another entry on the blacklist, next to https://freespeechextremist.com/ https://freespeechextremist.com/ and https://rapefeminists.network https://rapefeminists.network and other instances who shamelessly abuse the right to free speech.
  - scohesc 7y ago
    I wouldn't say they're abusing the right to free speech, they're taking full advantage of it. If you don't like what they're saying, you have every right to not listen to it, promote it yourself, and you also have the right to start a movement to let people know this is going on and to bring awareness to the festering shitpiles those websites are. It's not an abuse of the right to free speech.
    - phoe-krk 7y ago
      Many people come to a conclusion that that the classical definition of free speech is easily abusable when enough people gather and utilize free speech to promote hatred, closed-mindedness and bigotry. Thanks to free speech instances we get hoaxes like the ones that way 5G is a mortal danger, vaccines are a mortal danger, women, Muslims, Jews and people of color are despicable, and many other interesting "100% verified truths and facts". I know that the perfect solution for this problem does not conflict with free speech, but if that perfect solution (whatever it is) doesn't come soon enough, the world will get fed up with waiting and implement imperfect solutions, and limiting free speech is first on that list.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
xrjpi 7y ago
>Moving to the ActivityPub protocol as our base allows us to get into mobile App Stores without even having to submit and get approval of our own apps, whether Apple and Google like it or not They also had the option of creating an ActivityPub compatible API, no? But yes I guess it's easier this way. Having said that I wonder if they'll allow federation to happen. Most Mastodon instances restrict and censor speech so they will probably add Gab to the blocklist immediately but it would be cool if they could federate with other free speech instances. But then, what would be the point of using Gab instead of just other Mastodon instance?
- coldpie 7y ago
  Deciding what content is allowed on your private platform is not censorship. The platform owner is exercising their own form of speech.
  - dcolkitt 7y ago
    Incorrect. > Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient".[2][3][4] Censorship can be conducted by a government[5], private institutions, and corporations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
    - DanBC 7y ago
      Why aren't you quoting a real dictionary?
      - hedora 7y ago
        References 2-4 are popular dictionaries.
    - Hamuko 7y ago
      I like how the "private institutions, and corporations" part doesn't actually have a citation associated with it.
0815test 7y ago
Regardless of how you feel about the Gab folks in particular, this is great news that clearly shows the power of the federated web in enabling, empowering and preserving diverse audiences.
- krapp 7y ago
  Maybe now they'll stop concern-trolling about the inevitable slippery slope into an Orwellian fascist nightmare the world will descend into every time a site bans them. They have their own playground where they can be as racist and edgy as they want. Obligatory xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
  - rchaud 7y ago
    That won't happen because the constant alarmism about censorship is part of the appeal. "Your rights are being violated by the Hollywood/feminists/liberal elites! Send me money so I can tell you how to combat this scourge with Logic & Reason (TM)" People like J Peterson and Sargon could deal with being deplatformed in the way they preach to their disciples, but instead they whine about it while shaking their e-collection boxes.
    - balaksakrionon 7y ago
      I suspect the type of dismisiveness you show towards large swaths of the populace's opinions contributes to the success of folks like JBP and Sargon
      - rchaud 7y ago
        I suspect it does too, but probably for different reasons. Criticism of "thought leaders" like these guys only strengthens the hold they have among the legions of young people who follow their words like gospel. Any criticism of these figures for their platitude-heavy content and huckster-style marketing must also be a criticism of their followers as individuals, because they have bought into that mindset wholesale.
gargron 7y ago
Gab solicited $5M [1] in investments just to use open source software that anyone can use for free. Wonder how those investors feel about it. [1]: https://thinkprogress.org/social-network-that-caters-to-white-nationalists-raises-5-million-in-funding-9fa19fe2aaf1/ https://thinkprogress.org/social-network-that-caters-to-whit...
- ryanmarsh 7y ago
  In spite of the fact that Gab is a known cess pool (cis pool?), I funded it because we need more alternatives to the big social networks. I would have funded Tor and 4chan had I the opportunity many years ago. Not too long ago this was a classical liberal position. Today free speech is passé. Guess I'm just old fashioned. I'm happy to see that Gab is switching to Mastodon. I think it will increase the survivability of the platform. They've struggled under the engineering challenges of scaling a social network. Mastodon fans should be happy that this may mean an influx of hosts and developers.
  - paulgb 7y ago
    > Not too long ago this was a classical liberal position. Today free speech is passé. Guess I'm just old fashioned. It's not old fashioned, it's just that people differentiate free speech in principle from paying the server bills. Just as freedom of the press never meant the newspaper had to publish your op-ed, free speech online doesn't mean Twitter has to give anyone server space to post Nazi stuff. (I agree that there should be more platforms, but that's why I've supported other Mastadon instances instead of Gab.)
    - kgraves 7y ago
      Which is why I welcome Gab forking Mastodon. True, they may not have the same reach as everybody else, but they can have their own decentralised space to air their views and build their own stuff rather than relying on the mainstream social networks, free from censorship.
    - Fins 7y ago
      The problem is that Twitter's definition of "nazis" basically is "anyone we don't like, which isn't exactly useful for the overall benefit of humanity. Sort of like how FB recently said that they are going to deplatform white supremacists. Why not all supremacists, while you're at it, or don't pretend that you are doing something for any kind of greater good...
vikingcaffiene 7y ago
I had heard about Gab but never visited the site before. I just spent 30 seconds perusing the trending feed. I saw the following: 1. a video of a man being shot and killed during an armed robbery 2. 3 anti islam posts 3. the usual pro trump propaganda 4. a meme warning about the evils of feminism urging women to get back to their "place" in the family. Gab is a festering pile of trash. Anyone responsible for making any technical decisions on it should be ashamed of themselves.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
  - village-idiot 7y ago
    GP isn't recommending that congress ban Gab. They're just using their own free speech to condemn it.
  - wpietri 7y ago
    The right to say something is different than people giving material support to it. E.g., I will defend your legal right stand on the corner with a pro-holocaust placard. But anybody printing those placards or otherwise helping you is an asshole. I will happily tell them so, and I will refuse to do business with them. That's me exercising my rights of freedom of speech and freedom of association. Freedom of speech isn't freedom from criticism. And it's also not freedom from any other lawful reaction. Anybody helping with Gab richly deserves criticism and shunning in the technical community.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - rhcom2 7y ago
    It's not nearly cut and dry as this quote as defining what "right to say it" means in the age of the internet is a massive open question.
Keverw 7y ago
I first heard of Gab when big social media sites were accused of censoring conservatives during the 2016 election. One of the idea of Gab is if you don't like what people say you can block them and don't visit their profile... So for example many social networks banned Alex Jones... With Gab if you don't like what he says, you don't have to follow him... So instead of the site itself trying to censor people, the users can censor things themselves. I believe the only thing Gab censors is if the content itself is illegal in some way, but other than that they support free speech giving users more choices and freedom.
- samfriedman 7y ago
  Sure you can block specific users, but if I don't want to see (for example) anti-semitism how can I block that topic completely? It's not as if users tag their posts with each brand of hate speech.
  - Keverw 7y ago
    I'm not sure if you block someone if it also hides their topics created by them but I would assume so. I know they have a way to block words too. I guess they call it mute users and words instead of block. I know some people were calling this the alt tech space. I haven't really been following it other than I remember the developer was interviewed talking about it. Another idea instead of verification badge being reserved for large celebrities, supposed to be more to show it's truly them. I do think we're going down a slippery slope with all this censorship though and a few large players in Silicon valley controlling everything. I know there was a lot of accusations going on, that some search engines and sites were rigged to rank Hillary higher than Trump... Even the people in the media were saying Trump had no chance and Hillary was going to win. It's like they tried to rig the whole thing. But even then the mainstream media is all controlled by a few hands anyways too. Then there are only really two main operating systems... On Mobile iOS and Android. Desktop Mac and Windows... So seems like more choices and freedom is a great thing, so power is spread out more instead of a few having large amounts of influence. However I also feel like people will pick things based on ease of use and features over being open. I like the ideas of Linux but I find myself using MacOs when it comes to desktop operating systems. I know people are building alternatives to Facebook and YouTube on the blockchain (such as Steemit). Then there are even projects aiming to build alternatives to Wikipedia as some people don't even trust them either, forget what it's called though off the top of my head though. I know some of these companies have a lot of control and power, and can't even provide decent technical support. I know Elizabeth Warren recent thing is talking about breaking up big tech, Google and Facebook... I like a lot of what Google does though, as a geek they are doing awesome things technically. I'm not sure if breaking them up is a good idea or not, but I think more competition and choices would be great as lack of tech support is a concern(and many recent HN posts on that topic already) and ideally I wish they'd be neutral in ranking things but I know people debate about that anyway as a whole other topic.
ocdtrekkie 7y ago
Oh, the Mastodon community is going to be ticked about this... Purism said Librem One's server wasn't going to police speech, and they were upset about it. Gab is a whole different level. I think ActivityPub has huge potential to be a way for communities of disparate views and perspectives to exist out there, and two distinct and very opposing groups have grasped onto it: People who want space spaces who don't think mainstream platforms moderate enough, and the alt-right and free speech crowd. In the long run, I think you'll see a lot of ActivityPub servers, but two distinct federations, with very few links between them: One radically liberal and one radically conservative.
- davexunit 7y ago
  Nice job equivocating nazis and the people that don't like nazis.
  - Dirlewanger 7y ago
    He did nothing of the sort. And his assessment is correct. Mastodon, and federated social networks, are the wrong direction for social media. I don't understand how more people don't see this; open-source or not, walled gardens only worsen polarization and demonization of the "other side".
    - davexunit 7y ago
      I like my feed to not be flooded with racist/sexist replies. Mastodon has been a huge step in the right direction in this regard. "Free speech" doesn't mean "no moderation allowed".
      - Dirlewanger 7y ago
        Your "feed" (at least in the context of Facebook's/Twitter's) is comprised of people/groups that you follow. If your feed is garbage, then that means you follow people/groups that post garbage. Mastodon will be a more amplified version of that.
travisoneill1 7y ago
Most HN posts: HN users hate internet controlled and censored by governments or corporations This post: HN users hate it when things they don't like manage to get around corporate and government censorship
- zzzcpan 7y ago
  Different HN users in both cases. When comment section becomes unwelcome to the first group, they don't comment. I always support Gab, nazis, child porn, piracy over censorship.
- kgraves 7y ago
  Absolutely.
- anon12345690 7y ago
  lol and another big story is talking about china attacking activists and everyones freaking out. people who want to censor are the worst.
  - travisoneill1 7y ago
    And they're such losers too. They just downvote because they can't even present a counterargument.
- antepodius 7y ago
  Maybe there's a selection effect on who comments on the thread? People who know and heavily dislike Gab already might be more motivated, when scrolling past the thread, to comment on it.
- dang 7y ago
  It's different people. You might as well complain about the human race this way.
gfodor 7y ago
Those focused on Gab's audience should realize this kind of attempt is the best hope for a global migration off of twitter to a decentralized service. (Which to me, would be a good thing.) If it was ever going to happen at this point, it would probably be by venture backed company addressing an alienated audience from the platform who is incentivized enough to switch platforms, building a good UX around a decentralized alternative, and then hoping you can get enough critical mass for network effects to kick in. In the limit, the alt-right focus of Gab will eventually dilute away if the edges of the network get built up and Gab is just another (big) node in the network -- nascent services have an audience focus to get traction that self-evidently goes away as they reach global scale. You don't have to like their choice of initial audience, but this strategic execution certainly seems one worth keeping an eye on, not just to see if the migration starts to happen at a larger scale but also because if they validate the strategy other companies can target similar niche audiences.
- ocdtrekkie 7y ago
  Most of the Mastodon network will ban Gab immediately (and the founder of Gab acknowledges as much in the comments of the article), community dilution is very unlikely. But they will get to share federation with a variety of other alt-right and free speech zone Mastodon servers which have been banned by the larger fediverse community.
  - gfodor 7y ago
    As it should be -- by community dilution I was referring more to mind share around Mastodon and also the likelihood that Gab's community would soften its alt-right focus if it's able to get traction with a wider audience that may lean right but is not hard right. I think this kind of federation for under-served audiences, combined with good productization, is a necessary step towards a future where fan-out 'microblogging' has the same place in our society as email. To me, it was quite a sight to see Congress speaking to half a dozen white men about how to decide what words people can say to each other over the Internet -- the absence of a representative for regulating "email speech" made it clear the importance of decentralizing these services.
jtr1 7y ago
Gab has certainly carved out a niche for some of the worst speech on the internet, including at the very least the announcement of terrorist activity (see Tree of Life, New Zealand massacres) if not the wholesale coordination of it. I don't think we can have a serious discussion about free speech without acknowledging that members of these groups have moved along a path from speech to actions that include mass murder. On the other hand if we're serious about free speech absolutism, this is probably the best case scenario. Federated Mastadon instances should have the option of blocking harassment from Gab users. Allow them to have their free speech, but the rest of online society should have the option to shun them - a real-world dynamic that is not well reflected on platforms like twitter _because_ of centralization. Rather than hopelessly petitioning Jack to ban the nazis, users + communities should be empowered to do it themselves.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  When you found a town that is extremely vocal in its ban on witch burning, it really shouldn't be a surprise to have it filled with witches. But that doesn't mean that witch burnings aren't a bad thing, or that towns with such a ban shouldn't exist.
kgraves 7y ago
As much as I hate the bad parts of Gab, I am glad they are standing up to their principles of being a truly free speech social network. The other social networks just love to censor everybody they disagree with, even a particular orange looking website. I am also excited and glad they are utilising open source software as well. (This was bound to happen sooner or later) This can make activitypub & decentralised networks mainstream.
- jtr1 7y ago
  I don't share any such appreciation for Gab. IMO, "free speech" in this case was a thinly veiled excuse for white supremacism, which has plenty of other homes on the internet. The developers of Gab chose to devote substantial portions of their lives to creating a platform for people who promote ethnic cleansing and the suppression of minorities. I don't think it's possible to do that without your eyes wide open, and I think that makes it a profoundly evil project.
  - kgraves 7y ago
    > ..."free speech" in this case is a thin wrapper over white supremacism, Even though this is your opinion I find this statement extremely ridiculous. I don't support or agree with their views, but free speech grants them the right to say it and I will defend that right (which includes everyone). The great thing is that you don't have to hear it, just block them if you don't like it.
    - ptah 7y ago
      it is a fact, not an opinion
      - rlt 7y ago
        I’m not saying I disagree, since I haven’t seen any evidence one way or the other, but maybe you or jtr1 could provide some evidence for those who haven’t been following Gab?
amiga-workbench 7y ago
I tried to find some remotely interesting content on that site, all I found was boomer political rambling and bile. If they do this, I'll be making sure I blacklist their instances. While there are plenty of free-speech oriented or even right wing mastodon instances, the signal to noise ratio on these is pretty good and there is actually content worth engaging with.
- rmtech 7y ago
  > there are plenty of free-speech oriented or even right wing mastodon instances, the signal to noise ratio on these is pretty good and there is actually content worth engaging with. any recommendations?
  - amiga-workbench 7y ago
    I see a lot of people in my feed from bsd.moe and liberdon.com, I'm on layer8.space at the moment but am considering hosting an instance just for myself. I feel like a burden being on someone else's server, using their bandwidth.
    - rmtech 7y ago
      What's the best way to use that kind of thing? Is there an app that's recommended?
      - amiga-workbench 7y ago
        I use Tusky on Android and the web UI for everything else.
Millennium 7y ago
Good. This will make an excellent test of the ability of Mastodon servers and users to ostracize malicious actors, and a solid driver for new features in this area of development.

91 points by betaveros 7y ago

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_(social_network) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_(social_network) - "Gab is an English-language social media website, launched publicly in 2017, known for its mainly far-right user base.[9] The site has been described as "extremist friendly"[10] or a "safe haven"[11] for neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right.[10] ... Antisemitism is a prominent part of the site's content[24] and the platform itself has engaged in antisemitic commentary.[13][25]" - and so on. I'm curious how the existing Mastodon users feel about this.

WC3w6pXxgGd 7y ago
Twitter has WAY more extreme people and expressed viewpoints on its platform than Gab.
black6 7y ago
There are existing instances which have been described as “nazi alt-right quadroons” and instance moderators can block other instances, so it’ll probably be business as usual.
smacktoward 7y ago
A nice thing about Mastodon/ActivityPub is that administrators of "instances" (which means basically each running copy of the server software; you create a user account with a specific Mastodon instance, rather than with Mastodon itself) can disable federation with individual other instances, if they want to. So if a particular instance becomes a haven for trolls or other miscreants, you can block that entire instance and your users will no longer have to deal anything posted from it. So I suspect that, if Gab really does become an ActivityPub instance, many other instances will just de-federate from them and that will be that.
- loceng 7y ago
  Okay cool. I wonder does that mean Gab is able to use and benefit from any apps/tools created for Mastodon instances - or would it be possible for the owners of those apps/tools themselves to block/prevent certain instances from benefiting? I'd hope that's the case so everyone has the ability to 'vote' for who they are supporting.
  - smacktoward 7y ago
    > I wonder does that mean Gab is able to use and benefit from any apps/tools created for Mastodon instances Theoretically, yes. If Gab becomes an ActivityPub instance, and you have an account on Gab, you should be able to use any ActivityPub client software to connect to it. Since all ActivityPub instances are supposed to implement the same API, clients are essentially agnostic as to which particular instance they're connecting to. It's kind of like how you can use any mail reader to connect to any IMAP/POP email account. What makes the de-federating thing I mentioned above significant here is that, just because you could use an ActivityPub client to connect to Gab, that doesn't necessarily mean you'd get access to anything in the fediverse outside of Gab. You can only connect to resources outside your instance if your instance is federated with that other one. If other instances refuse to federate with Gab, Gab users would be able to talk with each other and no one else.
  - hedora 7y ago
    Free Software can’t discriminate based on use case, but this was written back before godwin’s law was repealed, so, maybe no one will care that much if freedom zero gets tossed out? sigh https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms: [1] The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). ...
    - johnny22 7y ago
      sure it can. They have the right and ability to only allow connections to specific instances. You'd still have the right to recompile it without such a list though.
macinjosh 7y ago
This is a good example of why Wikipedia is not a reliable source for many things. I have used Gab and while it is true there are clearly anti-Semitic users on Gab but there are just as many users who call out that behavior and make fun of the simple mindedness of anti-semitism. Just because a platform is for free speech absolutism doesn't mean the platform itself is bad.
- anarchy8 7y ago
  > free speech absolutism I just did a cursory glance at Gab and I already found 4 antisemitic posts and that was just on the first page.
treerock 7y ago
Given it's a federated service, I doubt many mastadon users will know or care that much. Those that run servers might choose to blacklist them, making them all but invisible.
layoutIfNeeded 7y ago
Mastodon is like email. How do email users feel about other people sending nazi stuff via email?
- rchaud 7y ago
  Depends on where we are in the historical timeline. I remember abandoning Hotmail in 2004 because of just how much spam got through. Gmail's spam filter was leagues ahead, but I think these days they're all pretty good. These things take time to change. There will be an adjustment period during which Gab's hate content will spill over into other Mastodon environments. Like a spam senders list, Mastodon environments will need to continuously update the list of blocked Gab/hate group instances.
  - antepodius 7y ago
    I wonder which side is going to splinter first.

javagram 7y ago

> “Moving to the ActivityPub protocol as our base allows us to get into mobile App Stores without even having to submit and get approval of our own apps, whether Apple and Google like it or not.“ The perils (or benefits?) of open protocols. Existing mastodon/pleroma clients will be able to connect to Gab by adding a server setting. Now I wonder if mastodon client app developers will start filtering the allowed servers users can put in...

phoe-krk 7y ago
> Now I wonder if mastodon client app developers will start filtering the allowed servers users can put in... This is not the duty of client applications. Banning instances is the duty of the operators of individual instances, and the instance(s) on which you have your account(s) are the instance(s) whose blocking policy affects you. This is a feature. Most sane instances on the Fediverse already ban extremist and alt-right content, and Gab will be no different in that case - just another entry on the blacklist, next to https://freespeechextremist.com/ https://freespeechextremist.com/ and https://rapefeminists.network https://rapefeminists.network and other instances who shamelessly abuse the right to free speech.
- scohesc 7y ago
  I wouldn't say they're abusing the right to free speech, they're taking full advantage of it. If you don't like what they're saying, you have every right to not listen to it, promote it yourself, and you also have the right to start a movement to let people know this is going on and to bring awareness to the festering shitpiles those websites are. It's not an abuse of the right to free speech.
  - phoe-krk 7y ago
    Many people come to a conclusion that that the classical definition of free speech is easily abusable when enough people gather and utilize free speech to promote hatred, closed-mindedness and bigotry. Thanks to free speech instances we get hoaxes like the ones that way 5G is a mortal danger, vaccines are a mortal danger, women, Muslims, Jews and people of color are despicable, and many other interesting "100% verified truths and facts". I know that the perfect solution for this problem does not conflict with free speech, but if that perfect solution (whatever it is) doesn't come soon enough, the world will get fed up with waiting and implement imperfect solutions, and limiting free speech is first on that list.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

xrjpi 7y ago

>Moving to the ActivityPub protocol as our base allows us to get into mobile App Stores without even having to submit and get approval of our own apps, whether Apple and Google like it or not They also had the option of creating an ActivityPub compatible API, no? But yes I guess it's easier this way. Having said that I wonder if they'll allow federation to happen. Most Mastodon instances restrict and censor speech so they will probably add Gab to the blocklist immediately but it would be cool if they could federate with other free speech instances. But then, what would be the point of using Gab instead of just other Mastodon instance?

coldpie 7y ago
Deciding what content is allowed on your private platform is not censorship. The platform owner is exercising their own form of speech.
- dcolkitt 7y ago
  Incorrect. > Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient".[2][3][4] Censorship can be conducted by a government[5], private institutions, and corporations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
  - DanBC 7y ago
    Why aren't you quoting a real dictionary?
    - hedora 7y ago
      References 2-4 are popular dictionaries.
  - Hamuko 7y ago
    I like how the "private institutions, and corporations" part doesn't actually have a citation associated with it.

0815test 7y ago

Regardless of how you feel about the Gab folks in particular, this is great news that clearly shows the power of the federated web in enabling, empowering and preserving diverse audiences.

krapp 7y ago
Maybe now they'll stop concern-trolling about the inevitable slippery slope into an Orwellian fascist nightmare the world will descend into every time a site bans them. They have their own playground where they can be as racist and edgy as they want. Obligatory xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
- rchaud 7y ago
  That won't happen because the constant alarmism about censorship is part of the appeal. "Your rights are being violated by the Hollywood/feminists/liberal elites! Send me money so I can tell you how to combat this scourge with Logic & Reason (TM)" People like J Peterson and Sargon could deal with being deplatformed in the way they preach to their disciples, but instead they whine about it while shaking their e-collection boxes.
  - balaksakrionon 7y ago
    I suspect the type of dismisiveness you show towards large swaths of the populace's opinions contributes to the success of folks like JBP and Sargon
    - rchaud 7y ago
      I suspect it does too, but probably for different reasons. Criticism of "thought leaders" like these guys only strengthens the hold they have among the legions of young people who follow their words like gospel. Any criticism of these figures for their platitude-heavy content and huckster-style marketing must also be a criticism of their followers as individuals, because they have bought into that mindset wholesale.

gargron 7y ago

Gab solicited $5M [1] in investments just to use open source software that anyone can use for free. Wonder how those investors feel about it. [1]: https://thinkprogress.org/social-network-that-caters-to-white-nationalists-raises-5-million-in-funding-9fa19fe2aaf1/ https://thinkprogress.org/social-network-that-caters-to-whit...

ryanmarsh 7y ago
In spite of the fact that Gab is a known cess pool (cis pool?), I funded it because we need more alternatives to the big social networks. I would have funded Tor and 4chan had I the opportunity many years ago. Not too long ago this was a classical liberal position. Today free speech is passé. Guess I'm just old fashioned. I'm happy to see that Gab is switching to Mastodon. I think it will increase the survivability of the platform. They've struggled under the engineering challenges of scaling a social network. Mastodon fans should be happy that this may mean an influx of hosts and developers.
- paulgb 7y ago
  > Not too long ago this was a classical liberal position. Today free speech is passé. Guess I'm just old fashioned. It's not old fashioned, it's just that people differentiate free speech in principle from paying the server bills. Just as freedom of the press never meant the newspaper had to publish your op-ed, free speech online doesn't mean Twitter has to give anyone server space to post Nazi stuff. (I agree that there should be more platforms, but that's why I've supported other Mastadon instances instead of Gab.)
  - kgraves 7y ago
    Which is why I welcome Gab forking Mastodon. True, they may not have the same reach as everybody else, but they can have their own decentralised space to air their views and build their own stuff rather than relying on the mainstream social networks, free from censorship.
  - Fins 7y ago
    The problem is that Twitter's definition of "nazis" basically is "anyone we don't like, which isn't exactly useful for the overall benefit of humanity. Sort of like how FB recently said that they are going to deplatform white supremacists. Why not all supremacists, while you're at it, or don't pretend that you are doing something for any kind of greater good...

vikingcaffiene 7y ago

I had heard about Gab but never visited the site before. I just spent 30 seconds perusing the trending feed. I saw the following: 1. a video of a man being shot and killed during an armed robbery 2. 3 anti islam posts 3. the usual pro trump propaganda 4. a meme warning about the evils of feminism urging women to get back to their "place" in the family. Gab is a festering pile of trash. Anyone responsible for making any technical decisions on it should be ashamed of themselves.

saagarjha 7y ago
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
- village-idiot 7y ago
  GP isn't recommending that congress ban Gab. They're just using their own free speech to condemn it.
- wpietri 7y ago
  The right to say something is different than people giving material support to it. E.g., I will defend your legal right stand on the corner with a pro-holocaust placard. But anybody printing those placards or otherwise helping you is an asshole. I will happily tell them so, and I will refuse to do business with them. That's me exercising my rights of freedom of speech and freedom of association. Freedom of speech isn't freedom from criticism. And it's also not freedom from any other lawful reaction. Anybody helping with Gab richly deserves criticism and shunning in the technical community.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- rhcom2 7y ago
  It's not nearly cut and dry as this quote as defining what "right to say it" means in the age of the internet is a massive open question.

Keverw 7y ago

I first heard of Gab when big social media sites were accused of censoring conservatives during the 2016 election. One of the idea of Gab is if you don't like what people say you can block them and don't visit their profile... So for example many social networks banned Alex Jones... With Gab if you don't like what he says, you don't have to follow him... So instead of the site itself trying to censor people, the users can censor things themselves. I believe the only thing Gab censors is if the content itself is illegal in some way, but other than that they support free speech giving users more choices and freedom.

samfriedman 7y ago
Sure you can block specific users, but if I don't want to see (for example) anti-semitism how can I block that topic completely? It's not as if users tag their posts with each brand of hate speech.
- Keverw 7y ago
  I'm not sure if you block someone if it also hides their topics created by them but I would assume so. I know they have a way to block words too. I guess they call it mute users and words instead of block. I know some people were calling this the alt tech space. I haven't really been following it other than I remember the developer was interviewed talking about it. Another idea instead of verification badge being reserved for large celebrities, supposed to be more to show it's truly them. I do think we're going down a slippery slope with all this censorship though and a few large players in Silicon valley controlling everything. I know there was a lot of accusations going on, that some search engines and sites were rigged to rank Hillary higher than Trump... Even the people in the media were saying Trump had no chance and Hillary was going to win. It's like they tried to rig the whole thing. But even then the mainstream media is all controlled by a few hands anyways too. Then there are only really two main operating systems... On Mobile iOS and Android. Desktop Mac and Windows... So seems like more choices and freedom is a great thing, so power is spread out more instead of a few having large amounts of influence. However I also feel like people will pick things based on ease of use and features over being open. I like the ideas of Linux but I find myself using MacOs when it comes to desktop operating systems. I know people are building alternatives to Facebook and YouTube on the blockchain (such as Steemit). Then there are even projects aiming to build alternatives to Wikipedia as some people don't even trust them either, forget what it's called though off the top of my head though. I know some of these companies have a lot of control and power, and can't even provide decent technical support. I know Elizabeth Warren recent thing is talking about breaking up big tech, Google and Facebook... I like a lot of what Google does though, as a geek they are doing awesome things technically. I'm not sure if breaking them up is a good idea or not, but I think more competition and choices would be great as lack of tech support is a concern(and many recent HN posts on that topic already) and ideally I wish they'd be neutral in ranking things but I know people debate about that anyway as a whole other topic.

ocdtrekkie 7y ago

Oh, the Mastodon community is going to be ticked about this... Purism said Librem One's server wasn't going to police speech, and they were upset about it. Gab is a whole different level. I think ActivityPub has huge potential to be a way for communities of disparate views and perspectives to exist out there, and two distinct and very opposing groups have grasped onto it: People who want space spaces who don't think mainstream platforms moderate enough, and the alt-right and free speech crowd. In the long run, I think you'll see a lot of ActivityPub servers, but two distinct federations, with very few links between them: One radically liberal and one radically conservative.

davexunit 7y ago
Nice job equivocating nazis and the people that don't like nazis.
- Dirlewanger 7y ago
  He did nothing of the sort. And his assessment is correct. Mastodon, and federated social networks, are the wrong direction for social media. I don't understand how more people don't see this; open-source or not, walled gardens only worsen polarization and demonization of the "other side".
  - davexunit 7y ago
    I like my feed to not be flooded with racist/sexist replies. Mastodon has been a huge step in the right direction in this regard. "Free speech" doesn't mean "no moderation allowed".
    - Dirlewanger 7y ago
      Your "feed" (at least in the context of Facebook's/Twitter's) is comprised of people/groups that you follow. If your feed is garbage, then that means you follow people/groups that post garbage. Mastodon will be a more amplified version of that.

travisoneill1 7y ago

Most HN posts: HN users hate internet controlled and censored by governments or corporations This post: HN users hate it when things they don't like manage to get around corporate and government censorship

zzzcpan 7y ago
Different HN users in both cases. When comment section becomes unwelcome to the first group, they don't comment. I always support Gab, nazis, child porn, piracy over censorship.
kgraves 7y ago
Absolutely.
anon12345690 7y ago
lol and another big story is talking about china attacking activists and everyones freaking out. people who want to censor are the worst.
- travisoneill1 7y ago
  And they're such losers too. They just downvote because they can't even present a counterargument.
antepodius 7y ago
Maybe there's a selection effect on who comments on the thread? People who know and heavily dislike Gab already might be more motivated, when scrolling past the thread, to comment on it.
dang 7y ago
It's different people. You might as well complain about the human race this way.

gfodor 7y ago

Those focused on Gab's audience should realize this kind of attempt is the best hope for a global migration off of twitter to a decentralized service. (Which to me, would be a good thing.) If it was ever going to happen at this point, it would probably be by venture backed company addressing an alienated audience from the platform who is incentivized enough to switch platforms, building a good UX around a decentralized alternative, and then hoping you can get enough critical mass for network effects to kick in. In the limit, the alt-right focus of Gab will eventually dilute away if the edges of the network get built up and Gab is just another (big) node in the network -- nascent services have an audience focus to get traction that self-evidently goes away as they reach global scale. You don't have to like their choice of initial audience, but this strategic execution certainly seems one worth keeping an eye on, not just to see if the migration starts to happen at a larger scale but also because if they validate the strategy other companies can target similar niche audiences.

ocdtrekkie 7y ago
Most of the Mastodon network will ban Gab immediately (and the founder of Gab acknowledges as much in the comments of the article), community dilution is very unlikely. But they will get to share federation with a variety of other alt-right and free speech zone Mastodon servers which have been banned by the larger fediverse community.
- gfodor 7y ago
  As it should be -- by community dilution I was referring more to mind share around Mastodon and also the likelihood that Gab's community would soften its alt-right focus if it's able to get traction with a wider audience that may lean right but is not hard right. I think this kind of federation for under-served audiences, combined with good productization, is a necessary step towards a future where fan-out 'microblogging' has the same place in our society as email. To me, it was quite a sight to see Congress speaking to half a dozen white men about how to decide what words people can say to each other over the Internet -- the absence of a representative for regulating "email speech" made it clear the importance of decentralizing these services.

jtr1 7y ago

Gab has certainly carved out a niche for some of the worst speech on the internet, including at the very least the announcement of terrorist activity (see Tree of Life, New Zealand massacres) if not the wholesale coordination of it. I don't think we can have a serious discussion about free speech without acknowledging that members of these groups have moved along a path from speech to actions that include mass murder. On the other hand if we're serious about free speech absolutism, this is probably the best case scenario. Federated Mastadon instances should have the option of blocking harassment from Gab users. Allow them to have their free speech, but the rest of online society should have the option to shun them - a real-world dynamic that is not well reflected on platforms like twitter _because_ of centralization. Rather than hopelessly petitioning Jack to ban the nazis, users + communities should be empowered to do it themselves.

DuskStar 7y ago
When you found a town that is extremely vocal in its ban on witch burning, it really shouldn't be a surprise to have it filled with witches. But that doesn't mean that witch burnings aren't a bad thing, or that towns with such a ban shouldn't exist.

kgraves 7y ago

As much as I hate the bad parts of Gab, I am glad they are standing up to their principles of being a truly free speech social network. The other social networks just love to censor everybody they disagree with, even a particular orange looking website. I am also excited and glad they are utilising open source software as well. (This was bound to happen sooner or later) This can make activitypub & decentralised networks mainstream.

jtr1 7y ago
I don't share any such appreciation for Gab. IMO, "free speech" in this case was a thinly veiled excuse for white supremacism, which has plenty of other homes on the internet. The developers of Gab chose to devote substantial portions of their lives to creating a platform for people who promote ethnic cleansing and the suppression of minorities. I don't think it's possible to do that without your eyes wide open, and I think that makes it a profoundly evil project.
- kgraves 7y ago
  > ..."free speech" in this case is a thin wrapper over white supremacism, Even though this is your opinion I find this statement extremely ridiculous. I don't support or agree with their views, but free speech grants them the right to say it and I will defend that right (which includes everyone). The great thing is that you don't have to hear it, just block them if you don't like it.
  - ptah 7y ago
    it is a fact, not an opinion
    - rlt 7y ago
      I’m not saying I disagree, since I haven’t seen any evidence one way or the other, but maybe you or jtr1 could provide some evidence for those who haven’t been following Gab?

amiga-workbench 7y ago

I tried to find some remotely interesting content on that site, all I found was boomer political rambling and bile. If they do this, I'll be making sure I blacklist their instances. While there are plenty of free-speech oriented or even right wing mastodon instances, the signal to noise ratio on these is pretty good and there is actually content worth engaging with.

rmtech 7y ago
> there are plenty of free-speech oriented or even right wing mastodon instances, the signal to noise ratio on these is pretty good and there is actually content worth engaging with. any recommendations?
- amiga-workbench 7y ago
  I see a lot of people in my feed from bsd.moe and liberdon.com, I'm on layer8.space at the moment but am considering hosting an instance just for myself. I feel like a burden being on someone else's server, using their bandwidth.
  - rmtech 7y ago
    What's the best way to use that kind of thing? Is there an app that's recommended?
    - amiga-workbench 7y ago
      I use Tusky on Android and the web UI for everything else.

Millennium 7y ago

Good. This will make an excellent test of the ability of Mastodon servers and users to ostracize malicious actors, and a solid driver for new features in this area of development.