10 ms·

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 o

by 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
        ptah 7y ago
        it is not about something or someone 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
    - jakelazaroff 7y ago
      The "who to follow" on the left side of the post seems to rotate, but if I go down the list of what I see literally every member boasts some sort of odious point of view: - @OldEarthNeoFash, whose description literally says they're a Nazi - @AlexanderVI, who posts about how gay men should not be allowed to be President - @Reality_and_Truth, whose description boasts about "exposing Leftist scum 300 chars at a time" - @cashmoneyglock, whose posts reference Stalin "marrying Jewesses" and a conspiracy theory about MLK being a rapist - @BruceKenneway, whose description references Jews and white genocide - @AnthonyBoy, whose posts insinuate that Robert Mueller commits bestiality Try it! I'm sure you'll get a similar collection of terrible people. Remember, this is apropos of nothing. I don't have a Gab account, so they're not personalizing these for me based on accounts with which I've interacted before. It's just a random sample of people on Gab.
      - Fins 7y ago
        Frankly, if you look you can find people equally odious on Twitter as well. but if only people leaning in one direction get deplatformed there, of course they will congregate on a platform where they do not get deplatformed. Both end up as self-perpetuating filter bubbles (although Twitter might be slightly better just because its older and larger).
        jakelazaroff 7y ago
        > Frankly, if you look you can find people equally odious on Twitter as well. You can, but it's a tiny minority of people on Twitter. When I load this page on Gab, literally every single recommended account is like this. A random sample of Twitter users will be basically the same as a random sample of Internet users and brands; a random sample of Gab users seems to be entirely alt-right, white supremacists and Nazis. Of course people who tend to get deplatformed will tend to congregate on a platform where they don't. But Gab actively courts this userbase. See for example https://twitter.com/ClenchedFisk/status/1027690034718224384 https://twitter.com/ClenchedFisk/status/1027690034718224384
        Fins 7y ago
  - 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.

by jtr1 7y ago

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
      - ptah 7y ago
        it is not about something or someone 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
  - jakelazaroff 7y ago
    The "who to follow" on the left side of the post seems to rotate, but if I go down the list of what I see literally every member boasts some sort of odious point of view: - @OldEarthNeoFash, whose description literally says they're a Nazi - @AlexanderVI, who posts about how gay men should not be allowed to be President - @Reality_and_Truth, whose description boasts about "exposing Leftist scum 300 chars at a time" - @cashmoneyglock, whose posts reference Stalin "marrying Jewesses" and a conspiracy theory about MLK being a rapist - @BruceKenneway, whose description references Jews and white genocide - @AnthonyBoy, whose posts insinuate that Robert Mueller commits bestiality Try it! I'm sure you'll get a similar collection of terrible people. Remember, this is apropos of nothing. I don't have a Gab account, so they're not personalizing these for me based on accounts with which I've interacted before. It's just a random sample of people on Gab.
    - Fins 7y ago
      Frankly, if you look you can find people equally odious on Twitter as well. but if only people leaning in one direction get deplatformed there, of course they will congregate on a platform where they do not get deplatformed. Both end up as self-perpetuating filter bubbles (although Twitter might be slightly better just because its older and larger).
      - jakelazaroff 7y ago
        > Frankly, if you look you can find people equally odious on Twitter as well. You can, but it's a tiny minority of people on Twitter. When I load this page on Gab, literally every single recommended account is like this. A random sample of Twitter users will be basically the same as a random sample of Internet users and brands; a random sample of Gab users seems to be entirely alt-right, white supremacists and Nazis. Of course people who tend to get deplatformed will tend to congregate on a platform where they don't. But Gab actively courts this userbase. See for example https://twitter.com/ClenchedFisk/status/1027690034718224384 https://twitter.com/ClenchedFisk/status/1027690034718224384
        Fins 7y ago
- 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.