9 ms·

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 networ

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?
      - jtr1 7y ago
        A fair request. I did sign up some months ago to see for myself, but you can get a good idea perusing the references on their wikipedia article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_(social_network) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_(social_network)
        ptah 7y ago
        as an aside i always find it amusing that agitating for removing freedom from people based on religion, ethnicity or sex is somehow considered an enshrined freedom
        anon12345690 7y ago
        but you want to remove freedom from people just for saying something you dont like. thats bad too.
        ptah 7y ago
        it is not about something i don't like. it is about stopping people from ruining people's lives: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48458850 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48458850
        anon12345690 7y ago
        what does this have to do with anything? censorship doesnt fix this
        antepodius 7y ago
        You're advocating removing freedom from people you don't like. This is, presumably, also an enshrined freedom.
        ptah 7y ago
        it is not about people i don't like. i don't have any feelings either way about them. it is about stopping people from ruining people's lives: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48458850 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48458850
    - anon12345690 7y ago
      its definitely your opinion.
  - jtr1 7y ago
    Yes, yes, we're all familiar with the Patrick Henry quote. If my statement is so ridiculous, then point out why instead of making bald assertions. I made no argument about the value of free speech. I am arguing that, given the fairly obvious clientele, it is reasonable to assume that principled fealty to free speech was not the driving motivation in Gab's creation. I don't think it's ridiculous to point to the specific content that makes up the majority of Gab and say you would have to be extraordinarily obtuse not to realize what and for whom you were building a social network.
    - kgraves 7y ago
      > I am asserting that, given the fairly obvious clientele, it is reasonable to assume that principled fealty to free speech was not the driving motivation in Gab's creation. Well, I believe that free speech was the reason for Gab's creation, they were getting censored from other social platforms so they built their own. It just so as happens that over time they have attracted vile users to the platform who have way more unpopular views. So what are you really trying to say here?
      - jtr1 7y ago
        > ...they were getting censored from other social platforms so they built their own. It just so as happens that over time they have attracted vile users to the platform who have way more unpopular views. My point is that there is not much daylight between the former and the latter. Gab was not created in a vacuum by neutral arbiters of free speech.
      - jakelazaroff 7y ago
        > Well, I believe that free speech was the reason for Gab's creation And it's just a coincidence that the official account pushes anti-Semitism, right? https://twitter.com/ClenchedFisk/status/1027690034718224384 https://twitter.com/ClenchedFisk/status/1027690034718224384
    - anon12345690 7y ago
      your misrepresenting on purpose. they created a platform for free speech. you get the bad with the good. so what? thats not evil.
- anon12345690 7y ago
  free speech is free speech. that means people say bad things sometime. you know theres a big story on the frontpage right now about china activists being attacked? bet they would like some free speech.
  - jtr1 7y ago
    Certainly. And here I am, pointing at some speech and saying "that's bad."
    - anon12345690 7y ago
      you called it evil because they support free speech. why?
      - jtr1 7y ago
        I did not call it evil _because_ they support free speech. I call the specific content of that speech evil, and I call the act of promoting that specific speech evil. I would call ISIS recruitment videos evil. If someone created a social network for ISIS under the banner of "free speech", I would call their project evil. I don't in any way apologize for flatly condemning the kind of speech Gab is designed to harbor. And yet I happen to be a pretty big fan of free speech, somehow! If you'd read closely, you might notice I haven't called for the government to shut them down, and suggested that a Mastadon instance might be a good move. There's a case to be made that the Streisand effect means unilaterally banning neo-nazis helps spread their ideas. In my mind, perhaps it's better to pre-empt their persecution complex by allowing them a space that the rest of us can mute. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that these spaces serve as recruiting grounds for a rising international terrorist movement. That complicates things, and I don't have an easy answer for what should be done.
Iamhisalt 7y ago
This whole concept of trying to silence people rather than simple disagreeing is insane. Demonizing then for disagreeing with you more so.
graenxa 7y ago
Gab is not a free speech social network. Gab is a white supremacy social network. Gab has actively courted white supramcists[0], white supremacists make up the vast majority of their userbase[1]. I understand and respect your deep support of free speech. But please, take a step back here and think about what you are saying you are glad about. Are you really glad a group of people decided to roll up their sleeves and build a platform for white supremacists? Is that really an admirable use of someone's time, energy, and expertise? [0] https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/30/tech/gab-anti-semitic-speech-invs https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/30/tech/gab-anti-semitic-speech-... [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/10/31/silicon-valley-elite-social-media-hate-radicalization-that-led-gab/?utm_term=.1405a8351d26 https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/10/31/silicon...
- ThrowawayR2 7y ago
  If those people become the majority (which, terrifyingly, no longer seems outside of the realm of possibility), you and those who share your beliefs might become the ones needing the protections of free speech and the ability to circumvent deplatforming. _Now_ do you see why maintaining free speech protections is important?
  - objectivetruth 7y ago
    No, your strawman collapsed when I realized that if/when the new Nazis DO take over society to the point where anti-Nazis get kicked off Twitter, I'll probably already be in a prison camp or mass grave.
  - graenxa 7y ago
    I have no faith that those people would respect my rights of free speech at all. It is explicitly not part of their ideology. In my view, believing that if you defend free speech hard enough the forces of fascism and hate will become interested in "hearing all perspectives" is incredibly naive. To be clear, I do not think it should be illegal or impossible to express hateful views. I don't think there needs to be some effort to block their forking of Mastedon (if it were even possible). I think it _is_ wrong to celebrate a company which trades in hate and has provided a platform for radicalization which has contributed to at least two major terrorist attacks. I take issue with the sentiment that it is somehow good they are > "standing up to their principles of being a truly free speech social network" It's not true that they are a "free speech social network," they are a platform deliberately cultivating hate. And I think it's wrong to give anyone working to promote hate a pat on the back. Don't hold up Gab as some free speech hero, you're just playing into their narrative.

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?
    - jtr1 7y ago
      A fair request. I did sign up some months ago to see for myself, but you can get a good idea perusing the references on their wikipedia article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_(social_network) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_(social_network)
      - ptah 7y ago
        as an aside i always find it amusing that agitating for removing freedom from people based on religion, ethnicity or sex is somehow considered an enshrined freedom
        anon12345690 7y ago
        but you want to remove freedom from people just for saying something you dont like. thats bad too.
        ptah 7y ago
        it is not about something i don't like. it is about stopping people from ruining people's lives: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48458850 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48458850
        anon12345690 7y ago
        what does this have to do with anything? censorship doesnt fix this
        antepodius 7y ago
        You're advocating removing freedom from people you don't like. This is, presumably, also an enshrined freedom.
        ptah 7y ago
        it is not about people i don't like. i don't have any feelings either way about them. it is about stopping people from ruining people's lives: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48458850 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48458850
  - anon12345690 7y ago
    its definitely your opinion.
- jtr1 7y ago
  Yes, yes, we're all familiar with the Patrick Henry quote. If my statement is so ridiculous, then point out why instead of making bald assertions. I made no argument about the value of free speech. I am arguing that, given the fairly obvious clientele, it is reasonable to assume that principled fealty to free speech was not the driving motivation in Gab's creation. I don't think it's ridiculous to point to the specific content that makes up the majority of Gab and say you would have to be extraordinarily obtuse not to realize what and for whom you were building a social network.
  - kgraves 7y ago
    > I am asserting that, given the fairly obvious clientele, it is reasonable to assume that principled fealty to free speech was not the driving motivation in Gab's creation. Well, I believe that free speech was the reason for Gab's creation, they were getting censored from other social platforms so they built their own. It just so as happens that over time they have attracted vile users to the platform who have way more unpopular views. So what are you really trying to say here?
    - jtr1 7y ago
      > ...they were getting censored from other social platforms so they built their own. It just so as happens that over time they have attracted vile users to the platform who have way more unpopular views. My point is that there is not much daylight between the former and the latter. Gab was not created in a vacuum by neutral arbiters of free speech.
    - jakelazaroff 7y ago
      > Well, I believe that free speech was the reason for Gab's creation And it's just a coincidence that the official account pushes anti-Semitism, right? https://twitter.com/ClenchedFisk/status/1027690034718224384 https://twitter.com/ClenchedFisk/status/1027690034718224384
  - anon12345690 7y ago
    your misrepresenting on purpose. they created a platform for free speech. you get the bad with the good. so what? thats not evil.
anon12345690 7y ago
free speech is free speech. that means people say bad things sometime. you know theres a big story on the frontpage right now about china activists being attacked? bet they would like some free speech.
- jtr1 7y ago
  Certainly. And here I am, pointing at some speech and saying "that's bad."
  - anon12345690 7y ago
    you called it evil because they support free speech. why?
    - jtr1 7y ago
      I did not call it evil _because_ they support free speech. I call the specific content of that speech evil, and I call the act of promoting that specific speech evil. I would call ISIS recruitment videos evil. If someone created a social network for ISIS under the banner of "free speech", I would call their project evil. I don't in any way apologize for flatly condemning the kind of speech Gab is designed to harbor. And yet I happen to be a pretty big fan of free speech, somehow! If you'd read closely, you might notice I haven't called for the government to shut them down, and suggested that a Mastadon instance might be a good move. There's a case to be made that the Streisand effect means unilaterally banning neo-nazis helps spread their ideas. In my mind, perhaps it's better to pre-empt their persecution complex by allowing them a space that the rest of us can mute. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that these spaces serve as recruiting grounds for a rising international terrorist movement. That complicates things, and I don't have an easy answer for what should be done.

Iamhisalt 7y ago

This whole concept of trying to silence people rather than simple disagreeing is insane. Demonizing then for disagreeing with you more so.

graenxa 7y ago

Gab is not a free speech social network. Gab is a white supremacy social network. Gab has actively courted white supramcists[0], white supremacists make up the vast majority of their userbase[1]. I understand and respect your deep support of free speech. But please, take a step back here and think about what you are saying you are glad about. Are you really glad a group of people decided to roll up their sleeves and build a platform for white supremacists? Is that really an admirable use of someone's time, energy, and expertise? [0] https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/30/tech/gab-anti-semitic-speech-invs https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/30/tech/gab-anti-semitic-speech-... [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/10/31/silicon-valley-elite-social-media-hate-radicalization-that-led-gab/?utm_term=.1405a8351d26 https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/10/31/silicon...

ThrowawayR2 7y ago
If those people become the majority (which, terrifyingly, no longer seems outside of the realm of possibility), you and those who share your beliefs might become the ones needing the protections of free speech and the ability to circumvent deplatforming. _Now_ do you see why maintaining free speech protections is important?
- objectivetruth 7y ago
  No, your strawman collapsed when I realized that if/when the new Nazis DO take over society to the point where anti-Nazis get kicked off Twitter, I'll probably already be in a prison camp or mass grave.
- graenxa 7y ago
  I have no faith that those people would respect my rights of free speech at all. It is explicitly not part of their ideology. In my view, believing that if you defend free speech hard enough the forces of fascism and hate will become interested in "hearing all perspectives" is incredibly naive. To be clear, I do not think it should be illegal or impossible to express hateful views. I don't think there needs to be some effort to block their forking of Mastedon (if it were even possible). I think it _is_ wrong to celebrate a company which trades in hate and has provided a platform for radicalization which has contributed to at least two major terrorist attacks. I take issue with the sentiment that it is somehow good they are > "standing up to their principles of being a truly free speech social network" It's not true that they are a "free speech social network," they are a platform deliberately cultivating hate. And I think it's wrong to give anyone working to promote hate a pat on the back. Don't hold up Gab as some free speech hero, you're just playing into their narrative.