5 ms·

I wrote out a long response and only then starting researching Gab. So instead of my own words, here are some excerpts from their terms of service. If you don't

I wrote out a long response and only then starting researching Gab. So instead of my own words, here are some excerpts from their terms of service. If you don't like the counterarguments you're encountering here, you should consider that Gab feels the same way: > if you don't like what we're doing on Gab.com or simply want to manage your own experience, you can spin up your own Gab Social server that you control > We have the right to disable any user name, password, or other identifier, whether chosen by you or provided by us, at any time if we believe you have violated any provision of these Terms of Service. > You agree not to use the Website... To engage in any other conduct which, as determined by us, may result in the physical harm or offline harassment of the Company, individual users of the Website or any other person (e.g. “doxing”), or expose them to liability > the Company reserves the right to take any action with respect to any User Contribution that we deem necessary or appropriate in our sole discretion > User Contributions must NOT...be obscene... And of course all the usual legalese like indemnification and arbitration. AFAICT, the only difference between Gab and Twitter is that Gab has orders of magnitude less users, and if they ever reached the usership levels of Twitter/Facebook/Reddit I have no doubt they would behave in ways they currently enjoy denouncing. I think they just want to have their cake and eat it, too. edit: grammar, again haha

searchableguy 6y ago
> If you don't like the counterarguments you're encountering here, you should consider that Gab feels the same way I am genuinely curious why you are trying to divert my initial point into a different direction here. I gave an example of gabe to illustrate that there needs to be some hard point for private companies to be responsible or adhere strictly to the legality or public. Visa isn't a small private business that is refusing to work with you. They are a global monopoly. If your argument is there are more competitors, it doesn't matter if they all collude with each like master card does with visa to keep competitors off or does something to restrict people.
- sixstringtheory 6y ago
  I don't mean to divert. Allow me to try to summarize: You: Gab can't use Visa (A) for reasons, it's not reasonable to suggest that (B) a competitor be built Gab: we can kick you off (A') for reasons, you can always spin up a Gab instance to run yourself (B') What is the difference between A and A', and B and B'?
  - searchableguy 6y ago
    I already explained that. Building an alternative to gab isn't hard. Building alternatives to visa is a bar beyond average people or group of them. I can spin up an instance of mastodon within few minutes. I can't do the same for visa. I can't do the same for google cloud, cloudflare or any of the other monoliths. This isn't applicable to all the situations but it is one of the factor differentiating gab from visa. Another is the reach. If gab has the same number of users as youtube, then they should have something to let the public have a choice in what happens on the platform. I don't know where to define the user scale though. it's a hard problem. At 1 billion? Maybe when 90% of the country uses it?
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    not the same poster, but I think the point they were making had to do with the criticality of services and availability of alternatives? Should the only grocery store in a town be able to refuse service to an individual that they don't like? It is unlikely a single individual is in a position to open a grocery store that can economically compete with the super-wall-mart. How about a gas station in the middle of a desert where refusing service might literally result in death?
    - alistairSH 6y ago
      Instead of arguing criticality, can we reframe in terms of human rights? Political speech and life/health are generally considered basic human rights. Driving in the desert is not, so I don't see it as a valid comparison. I find it hard to view Twitter as critical to expression of political speech, when other platforms exist... literal soapbox in a park is available, plus Gab, Facebook, mailing flyers, printing booklets, etc. Access to food is certainly critical to ones life/health, so the government should play some role in ensuring reasonable access. However, the bar for intervention should be high. Is there no grocer at the next town over? No farmer's market? No Amazon Fresh? No ability to grow your own food? If none of those are viable options, then yes, the government likely should intervene in some way. As noted above, driving (let alone driving in the desert) is not a basic right, so I could not in good faith argue for government intervention in the gasoline/fuel market.

searchableguy 6y ago

> If you don't like the counterarguments you're encountering here, you should consider that Gab feels the same way I am genuinely curious why you are trying to divert my initial point into a different direction here. I gave an example of gabe to illustrate that there needs to be some hard point for private companies to be responsible or adhere strictly to the legality or public. Visa isn't a small private business that is refusing to work with you. They are a global monopoly. If your argument is there are more competitors, it doesn't matter if they all collude with each like master card does with visa to keep competitors off or does something to restrict people.

sixstringtheory 6y ago
I don't mean to divert. Allow me to try to summarize: You: Gab can't use Visa (A) for reasons, it's not reasonable to suggest that (B) a competitor be built Gab: we can kick you off (A') for reasons, you can always spin up a Gab instance to run yourself (B') What is the difference between A and A', and B and B'?
- searchableguy 6y ago
  I already explained that. Building an alternative to gab isn't hard. Building alternatives to visa is a bar beyond average people or group of them. I can spin up an instance of mastodon within few minutes. I can't do the same for visa. I can't do the same for google cloud, cloudflare or any of the other monoliths. This isn't applicable to all the situations but it is one of the factor differentiating gab from visa. Another is the reach. If gab has the same number of users as youtube, then they should have something to let the public have a choice in what happens on the platform. I don't know where to define the user scale though. it's a hard problem. At 1 billion? Maybe when 90% of the country uses it?
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  not the same poster, but I think the point they were making had to do with the criticality of services and availability of alternatives? Should the only grocery store in a town be able to refuse service to an individual that they don't like? It is unlikely a single individual is in a position to open a grocery store that can economically compete with the super-wall-mart. How about a gas station in the middle of a desert where refusing service might literally result in death?
  - alistairSH 6y ago
    Instead of arguing criticality, can we reframe in terms of human rights? Political speech and life/health are generally considered basic human rights. Driving in the desert is not, so I don't see it as a valid comparison. I find it hard to view Twitter as critical to expression of political speech, when other platforms exist... literal soapbox in a park is available, plus Gab, Facebook, mailing flyers, printing booklets, etc. Access to food is certainly critical to ones life/health, so the government should play some role in ensuring reasonable access. However, the bar for intervention should be high. Is there no grocer at the next town over? No farmer's market? No Amazon Fresh? No ability to grow your own food? If none of those are viable options, then yes, the government likely should intervene in some way. As noted above, driving (let alone driving in the desert) is not a basic right, so I could not in good faith argue for government intervention in the gasoline/fuel market.