4 ms·

I lost a lot of respect for them, when they participated in Gab censorship.

wildduck 7y ago
@JensRex, What is Gap censorship? From what is available on the internet, Gap seems to be online publishing is decentralized and open using AGPL3. However, I don't anything about it. Maybe you can share.
- lawlessone 7y ago
  > I don't anything about it. Maybe you can share. Gab ,It's essentially only used by and caters to white supremacists now.
  - wildduck 7y ago
    >Gab ,It's essentially only used by and caters to white supremacists now. Any sources you can share?
    - acollins1331 7y ago
      There aren't scholarly sources on this stuff. Just stop by sometime and read the drivel.
- krageon 7y ago
  Gab was a platform advocating "free speech" and as is the meme with those types of platforms these days, it was filled by people denying the holocaust and claiming all black people operate better as slaves. The list is not exhaustive, but you get the idea. To my mind, no good-faith claim that such things do not need to be ostracised exists.
  - HeWhoLurksLate 7y ago
    Unfortunately, in this day and age, social ostracism makes things worse because people tend to continue to group up on other platforms that are worse. Like Gab- can't use Twitter? We'll make our own echo chamber. Them being on Twitter is bad, but being on their own platform is arguably worse. > To my mind, no good-faith claim that such things do not need to be ostracised exists. Here's my claim- WRT to the internet, ostracism of extremists generally makes the social situation worse. (BTW, I really don't like it, either.)
    - LocalH 7y ago
      Them being on Twitter is bad, but being on their own platform is arguably worse. I fully agree with this. It will end up being a self-fulfilling prophecy for those arguing against true freedom of speech. When you deplatform a viewpoint entirely, then the people with that viewpoint are going to coalesce onto a much smaller platform, which will end up being an echo chamber for the viewpoints that the rest of the world desires to quash. Then, it will end up becoming an argument to prevent such echo chambers from even forming in the first place, which would effectively make it impossible for smaller players to get an inroad, as they'll just be preemptively accused of being inherently alt-right. These people don't understand that, when you centralize control over avenues of speech like that, then one day that centralized control can do a 180 and start banning any type of speech, and not just "harmful" or "problematic" speech. It's literally the same type of tactic that China uses to suppress dissent, just on a different scale (and with a different culture behind it). It's so transparent, yet the prevailing "public narrative" is still highly supportive of deplatforming.
    - krageon 7y ago
      This argument is compelling on the surface, were it not that Europe has had laws against this kind of speech for a fairly long time now and it has made nothing worse. The place where it really is worse is the US, where even people who are not fascists seem to imagine that it is important to give them a "platform".
- _-o-_ 7y ago
  It started as a free speech Twitter alternative aimed at republicans. But along with republicans and free speech activists they've attracted right-leaning extremists that were banned from Twitter for a plethora of good reasons. As a result of those users being left unmoderated, Gab gained a certain reputation. Gab's apps weren't accepted to either app store, they were booted by several hosting companies, had to switch domain registrar and their stripe account was suspended. Switch to a Mastodon fork is a recent development.
  - astrodust 7y ago
    "Republicans"? That's what we're calling them now?

@JensRex, What is Gap censorship? From what is available on the internet, Gap seems to be online publishing is decentralized and open using AGPL3. However, I don't anything about it. Maybe you can share.

lawlessone 7y ago
> I don't anything about it. Maybe you can share. Gab ,It's essentially only used by and caters to white supremacists now.
- wildduck 7y ago
  >Gab ,It's essentially only used by and caters to white supremacists now. Any sources you can share?
  - acollins1331 7y ago
    There aren't scholarly sources on this stuff. Just stop by sometime and read the drivel.
krageon 7y ago
Gab was a platform advocating "free speech" and as is the meme with those types of platforms these days, it was filled by people denying the holocaust and claiming all black people operate better as slaves. The list is not exhaustive, but you get the idea. To my mind, no good-faith claim that such things do not need to be ostracised exists.
- HeWhoLurksLate 7y ago
  Unfortunately, in this day and age, social ostracism makes things worse because people tend to continue to group up on other platforms that are worse. Like Gab- can't use Twitter? We'll make our own echo chamber. Them being on Twitter is bad, but being on their own platform is arguably worse. > To my mind, no good-faith claim that such things do not need to be ostracised exists. Here's my claim- WRT to the internet, ostracism of extremists generally makes the social situation worse. (BTW, I really don't like it, either.)
  - LocalH 7y ago
    Them being on Twitter is bad, but being on their own platform is arguably worse. I fully agree with this. It will end up being a self-fulfilling prophecy for those arguing against true freedom of speech. When you deplatform a viewpoint entirely, then the people with that viewpoint are going to coalesce onto a much smaller platform, which will end up being an echo chamber for the viewpoints that the rest of the world desires to quash. Then, it will end up becoming an argument to prevent such echo chambers from even forming in the first place, which would effectively make it impossible for smaller players to get an inroad, as they'll just be preemptively accused of being inherently alt-right. These people don't understand that, when you centralize control over avenues of speech like that, then one day that centralized control can do a 180 and start banning any type of speech, and not just "harmful" or "problematic" speech. It's literally the same type of tactic that China uses to suppress dissent, just on a different scale (and with a different culture behind it). It's so transparent, yet the prevailing "public narrative" is still highly supportive of deplatforming.
  - krageon 7y ago
    This argument is compelling on the surface, were it not that Europe has had laws against this kind of speech for a fairly long time now and it has made nothing worse. The place where it really is worse is the US, where even people who are not fascists seem to imagine that it is important to give them a "platform".
_-o-_ 7y ago
It started as a free speech Twitter alternative aimed at republicans. But along with republicans and free speech activists they've attracted right-leaning extremists that were banned from Twitter for a plethora of good reasons. As a result of those users being left unmoderated, Gab gained a certain reputation. Gab's apps weren't accepted to either app store, they were booted by several hosting companies, had to switch domain registrar and their stripe account was suspended. Switch to a Mastodon fork is a recent development.
- astrodust 7y ago
  "Republicans"? That's what we're calling them now?