5 ms·

Gab allows Free Speech and does not have a code of conduct or ban or censor anyone. They claim this is freedom and the code of conduct is fascism. Anyone who w

Gab allows Free Speech and does not have a code of conduct or ban or censor anyone. They claim this is freedom and the code of conduct is fascism. Anyone who writes a racist comment usually gets called out on it and called an idiot and mocked anyway on Gab. You cannot have both free speech and a code of conduct at the same time. You either allow everything or censor and ban things to a degree. Most of these racist comments are made by teenagers who think the N-word is funny and trolling people. So they post it over and over again.

phoe-krk 7y ago
Gab, via their free speech and unwillingness to take down content in general, promotes content that is racist, misogynyst, antifeminist, islamophobic, xenophobic, homophobic, transphobic, classist, ableist, authoritariant, supremacist, and pretty much anti-intellectual. This is why I oppose that platform. Of course you can have free speech as a person and a code of conduct for your service. You are free to say anything, and your platform has a right to not want to hear or spread anything.
- lake1 7y ago
  You are silly.
- smsm42 7y ago
  > promotes content that is racist There's worlds of difference between hosting content and promoting content. The first is act of broad tolerance, the second is act of encouragement and agreement. This distinction is so important that the very first Amendment of US Constitution is based on it - the US government is obliged to tolerate any religion, but is explicitly forbidden to promote any. > and your platform has a right to not want to hear or spread anything. Once platform takes control over the right to hear, it ceases to be a neutral platform and becomes an editorial force. With private companies, it's usually not a problem - even if an unpopular opinion is suppressed and censored on one platform, it can be published on another. With growing monopolization of social networking, and with low-level infrastructure providers being slowly roped into facilitating censorship, this is becoming less and less true. And then we have to remind ourselves - why exactly do we have that First Amendment? If censorship is so good, why not let the government do it - after all, they are the ones that can do it best! Obviously, there are some bad downsides to it. We should remind ourselves from time to time what are those.
panpanna 7y ago
Well, would you like to allow that kind of comments on HN? I mean it's just teenagers using the N word...
probably_wrong 7y ago
> You cannot have both free speech and a code of conduct at the same time. I feel I should point out that this is a point of view that's very popular in the US, but not universal. F-Droids' website makes me belive that they are somewhere in Europe, where the rules for "Free Speech" are different. Also, I'm admittedly not familiar with the nuances of freedom of speech in the USA, but I would believe that your statement is not entirely correct in there either.
- s9w 7y ago
  Europe does not have free speech. But that cocs conflict with free speech is true independent of national laws I think.
  - zaarn 7y ago
    Europe has a different free speech, the definitions and laws differ. Saying "Europe has no free speech" is only correct from a very US-centric PoV. In Europe, we have learned the danger that true free speech poses.
    - s9w 7y ago
      Free speech is a pretty easy and clear concept. Europe definitely does not fulfill that. Also "we" (I'm German) do not (all) like the extremely limited range of things we can say.
      - zaarn 7y ago
        Free speech in Germany is not based on the same definition as free speech in the US. The constitution and the BGB/StGB outline fairly clearly what is and isn't illegal hate speech and what is free speech. You have a right to free speech but no right to hate speech, simple as that. Here Gab is in clear violation of NetzDG and Hatespeech Laws with no Provider Privilege. (I'm also German and I recently visited a law course for a semester at my Uni, so I'm familiar with the basics) The only people that seem to really have an issue with our current hatespeech laws are the AfD fraction in the Bundestag.

phoe-krk 7y ago

Gab, via their free speech and unwillingness to take down content in general, promotes content that is racist, misogynyst, antifeminist, islamophobic, xenophobic, homophobic, transphobic, classist, ableist, authoritariant, supremacist, and pretty much anti-intellectual. This is why I oppose that platform. Of course you can have free speech as a person and a code of conduct for your service. You are free to say anything, and your platform has a right to not want to hear or spread anything.

lake1 7y ago
You are silly.
smsm42 7y ago
> promotes content that is racist There's worlds of difference between hosting content and promoting content. The first is act of broad tolerance, the second is act of encouragement and agreement. This distinction is so important that the very first Amendment of US Constitution is based on it - the US government is obliged to tolerate any religion, but is explicitly forbidden to promote any. > and your platform has a right to not want to hear or spread anything. Once platform takes control over the right to hear, it ceases to be a neutral platform and becomes an editorial force. With private companies, it's usually not a problem - even if an unpopular opinion is suppressed and censored on one platform, it can be published on another. With growing monopolization of social networking, and with low-level infrastructure providers being slowly roped into facilitating censorship, this is becoming less and less true. And then we have to remind ourselves - why exactly do we have that First Amendment? If censorship is so good, why not let the government do it - after all, they are the ones that can do it best! Obviously, there are some bad downsides to it. We should remind ourselves from time to time what are those.

panpanna 7y ago

Well, would you like to allow that kind of comments on HN? I mean it's just teenagers using the N word...

probably_wrong 7y ago

> You cannot have both free speech and a code of conduct at the same time. I feel I should point out that this is a point of view that's very popular in the US, but not universal. F-Droids' website makes me belive that they are somewhere in Europe, where the rules for "Free Speech" are different. Also, I'm admittedly not familiar with the nuances of freedom of speech in the USA, but I would believe that your statement is not entirely correct in there either.

s9w 7y ago
Europe does not have free speech. But that cocs conflict with free speech is true independent of national laws I think.
- zaarn 7y ago
  Europe has a different free speech, the definitions and laws differ. Saying "Europe has no free speech" is only correct from a very US-centric PoV. In Europe, we have learned the danger that true free speech poses.
  - s9w 7y ago
    Free speech is a pretty easy and clear concept. Europe definitely does not fulfill that. Also "we" (I'm German) do not (all) like the extremely limited range of things we can say.
    - zaarn 7y ago
      Free speech in Germany is not based on the same definition as free speech in the US. The constitution and the BGB/StGB outline fairly clearly what is and isn't illegal hate speech and what is free speech. You have a right to free speech but no right to hate speech, simple as that. Here Gab is in clear violation of NetzDG and Hatespeech Laws with no Provider Privilege. (I'm also German and I recently visited a law course for a semester at my Uni, so I'm familiar with the basics) The only people that seem to really have an issue with our current hatespeech laws are the AfD fraction in the Bundestag.