7 ms·

Gab’s Response to Senator Mark Warner

92 points by neartheplain 6y ago

gabereiser 6y ago
I love how the grandstanding of pointing out they don’t make public remarks becomes a public remark. Get real. Gab is allowed to operate how they wish, and we are allowed to ignore them and not engage them. Let them die out as the only online island of neo-nazism and nationalist white pride. Good luck with that. The whole crusade to make ANY published content ANYWHERE to be classified as free speech is misguided and twists what the first amendment says.
- linuxftw 6y ago
  > twists what the first amendment says. Quote it, and I'll explain what it means to you.
  - gabereiser 6y ago
    I know what it means to me. I also know it’s limits, shall I explain what those are to you?
- new_guy 6y ago
  > Let them die out as the only online island of neo-nazism and nationalist white pride. GAB is a well known honeypot, and it doesn't even break the top 20 of White pride/Nazi sites. This whole thing is marketing by them, Torba is using the exact same playbook as he did in 2018 ( https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/10/gab-the-alt-right-social-media-site-gets-banned.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/10/gab-the-alt-right-so... ) Parler was getting the attention, now GAB is.
tw04 6y ago
>In their zeal to bend to “woke” political agendas or outside pressure groups, our contemporaries in the Valley forget the social importance of letting off steam and of exposing bad ideas, and bad people, to public scrutiny. I just have no time for this. You aren't exposing people to "public scrutiny" when you both give them the anonymity of the internet, and gleefully create an echo chamber where things like racial superiority and violence against others are glorified and re-affirmed. The message of "poor me" has been fine-tuned. It falls apart pretty quickly if you spend 10 minutes actually looking at the content on the site. Furthermore, if your end goal is truly "public scrutiny" to the ideals being posted on your site, why are you complaining that the public scrutiny has resulted in everyone in the valley telling you to go away? Isn't that EXACTLY what you claim the site is fostering?
sbinthree 6y ago
Excellent letter. Worth reading.
- orblivion 6y ago
  Not to mention their branding. Great picture.
whatsmyusername 6y ago
Memeing quite close to the sun with that one.
Vomzor 6y ago
https://www.warner.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/0/f/0f7317b1-b27b-429f-915e-e8187e1fb4e5/EB1EAF925FA2AFBA8219B7DBF485ECB0.letter-to-social-media-re-capitol-attack---gab.pdf https://www.warner.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/0/f/0f7317... The letter Gab is responding to.
- grahamburger 6y ago
  As expected, they don't respond to the letter, but just take the opportunity to climb up on their free speech soapbox. Warner's letter doesn't suggest anything that would further threaten Gab's platform, just asks them not to shred the evidence of crimes that were committed on their platform.
  - finnthehuman 6y ago
    >As expected, they don't respond to the letter They did, if you recognize that they're playing the exact same game as Warner. If Warner's office wanted to most rapidly and effectively ensure records are preserved by Gab, what would he have done? How many steps are there on the spectrum between (e.g.) contacting the capitol police to ensure that they have/will send such a request, and writing an open letter from a senator? If gab were to respond to the body of Warner's letter, rather than play the game, it would say "Dear Senator: If you think there is any chance we didn't already get this request two days before you got around to sending your letter, you should focus the power of your office on fixing your federal law enforcement agencies."
johncena33 6y ago
Can someone provide context for this letter? I am out of loop.
- neartheplain 6y ago
  Gab is a free speech-oriented social media platform similar to Parler. They position themselves as a home for users censored by mainstream social media platforms. In practice, Gab tends to attract racist, far-right, and extreme anti-government users. Many people who stormed the capitol on January 6 discussed their plans ahead of time on Gab. US Senator Mark Warner wrote an open letter [0] to Gab in which he asked them to preserve all posts related to that attack. Unlike Parler, Gab has a robust technology stack and operates independently of major cloud providers and payment processors. They were kicked off all those platforms years ago [1], just as Parler is getting evicted from them now. I suspect Gab will replace Parler as the platform of choice for QAnon proponents and the more fervent Trump supporters. For this reason, as well as for the extreme test case Gab represents for the 1st Amendment, I think Gab is worth watching. [0] https://www.warner.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/0/f/0f7317b1-b27b-429f-915e-e8187e1fb4e5/EB1EAF925FA2AFBA8219B7DBF485ECB0.letter-to-social-media-re-capitol-attack---gab.pdf https://www.warner.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/0/f/0f7317... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_(social_network)#2019%E2%80%93present https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_(social_network)#2019%E2%8...
Karunamon 6y ago
We have written to Google, Microsoft, and other companies in the Valley to advise them that their shortsighted boycott – one motivated by partisan political considerations and pressure campaigns – has had the side effect of denying us access to technologies we need such as PhotoDNA. This is a problem. If you don't like gab, fine, but any social network running at scale is going to need assistance in keeping child sexual abuse material away. When your partisan poo-flinging contributes to the victimization of children, it's time to step back and reassess.
- kitotik 6y ago
  Well played. The “think of the children” trick is almost always effective and difficult to counter.
  - Karunamon 6y ago
    This is no "play". I hadn't known until now that SV's ideologically-motivated hatred of alternative social networks had kept Gab from having decent CSA mitigation tech (I thought this was something you could get under more-or-less FRAND or as-needed terms), but apparently you need their blessing to do so. Forget partisan politics for a moment. How is that not anticompetitive?
- John23832 6y ago
  If Gab doesn’t have the resources to operate responsibly, and also cannot garner the support needed to do so, then it’s arguable that Gab shouldn’t exist.
  - iagovar 6y ago
    Ok, lets put our entire communications into the hands of a handful of corporations. What could go wrong.
    - John23832 6y ago
      That’s not what I said at all. It’s just gabs responsibility to maintain their standards on their own.
Dotnaught 6y ago
Gab claims to provide "what appears, after this week’s events on Twitter, to be the last place on the Internet where the First Amendment exists." The First Amendment constrains the US government; it does not address the conduct of private companies like Gab.
- zionic 6y ago
  The first amendment does not exist in a vacuum, it is based on an ideal so prevalent and powerful at the time it was literally the first thing they thought to include. Supporting freedom of speech is a moral imperative, and if your only defense of companies that suppress free expression is “well, it’s not technically illegal” maybe it’s time to take a long look in the mirror.
  - betterunix2 6y ago
    It was not the first thing they thought to include, it is an amendment -- literally something they did not bother to include when the wrote the original constitution. It is also very clear from the context and time at which it was written that the "speech" referred to in the first amendment is political discourse, not speech in general. Plotting a violent overthrow of the government is not what the Founders had in mind, something that they themselves made clear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_sedition_act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_sedition_act See the part about making false statements critical of the US government? Funny how Gab was created in response to Twitter taking action to stop people from doing exactly that on their platform. Whatever free speech ideal Gab stands for is not what people who ratified the first amendment had in mind.
  - esoterica 6y ago
    If you think supporting free speech is a moral imperative even for private companies, why do keep posting on a heavily moderated forum like HN that regularly bans people for trolling and being rude? Is that a tacit admission that censorship is sometimes desirable? If you were consistent about applying your principles you would boycott HN too.
sakebomb 6y ago
I wonder if Warner actually will read this... Most likely not. Unfortunate because Gab actually cares about handling malicious situations correctly. If section 230 is upheld, this would protect Gab, but it seems like certain groups just want to shutdown anything that does not conform to their views.
betterunix2 6y ago
Ah yes, the middle schooler's understanding of free speech, where "political discourse" includes plotting terrorist attacks.
- pdonis 6y ago
  You do understand that Gab specifically states that they are taking measures to stop bad actors from using their platform, right?
  - betterunix2 6y ago
    They may say so, but the fact is that (1) their platform is popular among domestic terrorists and (2) they trumpeted their free speech ideals in response to a request to preserve information related to a recent terrorist attack that was organized (in part) on their platform...
    - pdonis 6y ago
      I guess you either didn't read or don't care to acknowledge this part of the letter either, then: "We strongly encourage you to not believe the vicious smears you might read about Gab which our partisan detractors in the media, who want to abolish American-style free speech, frequently publish."
- valvar 6y ago
  Did you read the article?
dvt 6y ago
> Gab exists to promote freedom of speech, by which we mean all speech which is protected speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. No more, no less. I'm a free speech absolutist, but violent speech, "fighting words," insurrectionist speech, etc. are not protected under any free speech doctrine. Free speech isn't some carte blanche that allows anyone to say anything at any time. That's not how it works†. I've argued in favor of free speech here on HN (and got the downvotes to prove it) more times than I can remember. But this letter by Gab is absolutely disingenuous. Eric Coomer, a Dominion executive, for example, is not a public person. He has received death threats and is currently in a secure location due to credible threats to his family, children, and parents. At this very moment, on Gab TV, we have a live channel discussing his alleged fixing of votes (featuring Lin Wood). I mean, this is a blatant attack on a private person that has been proven to incite violence. This has nothing to do with free speech, and Gab is an absolute cesspool of delusional QAnon conspiracies, anti-vaxxers, and adjacent movements. They're going to have a hard time monetizing (just as 4chan did). † See Mill's Harm Principle.
- CancelFirefox 6y ago
  > Gab is an absolute cesspool of delusional QAnon conspiracies I see a lot of people say this but I've never seen anyone back it up with sources. What is the metric for "absolute cesspool of delusional QAnon conspiracies" and what makes Gab fit that metric better than Facebook or Twitter?
  - iagovar 6y ago
    If I had to bet, most people who talk about Gab, never had a Gab account, and got his info from your average political commentator threads in Twitter and your average media pieces. Right-wing people has the right to exist, and should have a place to discuss their stuff. If you want to close every platform they have because you find they host people with extremist views, then close all the social media all together. If anyone here presumes that the conditions that allowed Donald Trump in office will disappear because you can deplatform such people, then good luck.
    - 6y ago
John23832 6y ago
> our contemporaries in the Valley forget the social importance of letting off steam and of exposing bad ideas, and bad people, to public scrutiny. Interesting. Within this screed, Gab laments that other Silicon Valley forces have distanced themselves from it. One could argue that public scrutiny of ideals also involves reactions to those same ideals. Why is the distancing and refusal to do business with Gab (by individuals or businesses) not seen as valid by Gab? It seems hypocritical.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  I don't have any particular affinity for Gab, but TFA pretty clearly addresses your concern: namely, they never claim that free speech compels SV companies from associating with Gab, rather that the lack of cooperation makes it difficult for Gab to police illegal speech. I don't know the extent to which that claim is true, but it's a different claim altogether than the one you are perceiving.
  - John23832 6y ago
    That makes moderation Gab’s responsibility. Wanting a space that operates outside of the accepted norms means that you have to maintain that space on your own. If you can’t do that to the legal requirements, you shouldn’t exist.
    - throwaway894345 6y ago
      Is the implication that Gab is falling short of legal requirements, or merely that Gab isn't able to do as well as it could?
      - John23832 6y ago
        The implication is that none of the other Silicon Valley companies have a responsibility to help gab police its platform, that responsibility is gab’s. If gab truly valued its ability to police its site, and requires tools and help, then it would be a better citizen to ensure that help. “I’ll do what I want, and you must enable it.” isn’t a valid argument.
thih9 6y ago
For people unfamiliar with Gab, from Wikipedia: > Gab is an American alt-tech social networking service known for its far-right and extremist userbase. (...) Gab claims to promote free speech and individual liberty, though these statements have been criticized as being a shield for its alt-right and extremist ecosystem. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_(social_network) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_(social_network)
alangibson 6y ago
Here's an old article by Dershowitz that everyone concerned with the limits of free speech should read https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/89jan/dershowitz.htm https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/89jan/dershowit...
claytongulick 6y ago
Given the diminishing appetite for free expression in most of the online platforms these days, this letter is particularly refreshing. I've been thinking a lot about what a modern suppression-free platform would look like. I recall fondly the wild-west crazy freedom of the early IRC in all its magnificence and horror. I wonder if something could be done with inspiration from Mastodon and IPFS over WebRTC. I've also been thinking a lot about what a distributed web index/search platform would look like with indexeddb and WebRTC.
tbenst 6y ago
A bit of an odd letter, since Warner’s letter isn’t asking for documents but rather establishing a “duty to preserve” [1] due to high likelihood of impending litigation. IIUC, the senator’s letter is about all that can be done while the Senate is not in session. Insurrections are not protected free speech, and Gab may have liability. No doubt this will be litigated, and if Gab were to delete content now (as opposed to removing access), this might constitute obstruction of justice. [1] https://www.kramerlevin.com/images/content/2/5/v4/2562/Reasonable-20Anticipation-20of-20Litigation-20Under-20FRCP-2037-e-20Triggers-20and-20Limits.pdf https://www.kramerlevin.com/images/content/2/5/v4/2562/Reaso...
axguscbklp 6y ago
Something I've been wondering... so let's say I want to put a social media platform that I dislike out of business. Perhaps the platform is full of my political opponents, or maybe it's a business competitor of mine. What's to stop me from just posting a bunch of incitements to violence on the platform through a series of proxies (human and/or technological) until they get nuked?
claytongulick 6y ago
And now this article has been flagged. Ironic, given that the subject matter is the suppression of speech in online platforms.
ykevinator 6y ago
I'm really enjoying the reckoning. They get what they deserve and so do all the loyalists.

92 points by neartheplain 6y ago

I love how the grandstanding of pointing out they don’t make public remarks becomes a public remark. Get real. Gab is allowed to operate how they wish, and we are allowed to ignore them and not engage them. Let them die out as the only online island of neo-nazism and nationalist white pride. Good luck with that. The whole crusade to make ANY published content ANYWHERE to be classified as free speech is misguided and twists what the first amendment says.

linuxftw 6y ago
> twists what the first amendment says. Quote it, and I'll explain what it means to you.
- gabereiser 6y ago
  I know what it means to me. I also know it’s limits, shall I explain what those are to you?
new_guy 6y ago
> Let them die out as the only online island of neo-nazism and nationalist white pride. GAB is a well known honeypot, and it doesn't even break the top 20 of White pride/Nazi sites. This whole thing is marketing by them, Torba is using the exact same playbook as he did in 2018 ( https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/10/gab-the-alt-right-social-media-site-gets-banned.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/10/gab-the-alt-right-so... ) Parler was getting the attention, now GAB is.

tw04 6y ago

>In their zeal to bend to “woke” political agendas or outside pressure groups, our contemporaries in the Valley forget the social importance of letting off steam and of exposing bad ideas, and bad people, to public scrutiny. I just have no time for this. You aren't exposing people to "public scrutiny" when you both give them the anonymity of the internet, and gleefully create an echo chamber where things like racial superiority and violence against others are glorified and re-affirmed. The message of "poor me" has been fine-tuned. It falls apart pretty quickly if you spend 10 minutes actually looking at the content on the site. Furthermore, if your end goal is truly "public scrutiny" to the ideals being posted on your site, why are you complaining that the public scrutiny has resulted in everyone in the valley telling you to go away? Isn't that EXACTLY what you claim the site is fostering?

sbinthree 6y ago

Excellent letter. Worth reading.

orblivion 6y ago
Not to mention their branding. Great picture.

whatsmyusername 6y ago

Memeing quite close to the sun with that one.

Vomzor 6y ago

https://www.warner.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/0/f/0f7317b1-b27b-429f-915e-e8187e1fb4e5/EB1EAF925FA2AFBA8219B7DBF485ECB0.letter-to-social-media-re-capitol-attack---gab.pdf https://www.warner.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/0/f/0f7317... The letter Gab is responding to.

grahamburger 6y ago
As expected, they don't respond to the letter, but just take the opportunity to climb up on their free speech soapbox. Warner's letter doesn't suggest anything that would further threaten Gab's platform, just asks them not to shred the evidence of crimes that were committed on their platform.
- finnthehuman 6y ago
  >As expected, they don't respond to the letter They did, if you recognize that they're playing the exact same game as Warner. If Warner's office wanted to most rapidly and effectively ensure records are preserved by Gab, what would he have done? How many steps are there on the spectrum between (e.g.) contacting the capitol police to ensure that they have/will send such a request, and writing an open letter from a senator? If gab were to respond to the body of Warner's letter, rather than play the game, it would say "Dear Senator: If you think there is any chance we didn't already get this request two days before you got around to sending your letter, you should focus the power of your office on fixing your federal law enforcement agencies."

johncena33 6y ago

Can someone provide context for this letter? I am out of loop.

neartheplain 6y ago
Gab is a free speech-oriented social media platform similar to Parler. They position themselves as a home for users censored by mainstream social media platforms. In practice, Gab tends to attract racist, far-right, and extreme anti-government users. Many people who stormed the capitol on January 6 discussed their plans ahead of time on Gab. US Senator Mark Warner wrote an open letter [0] to Gab in which he asked them to preserve all posts related to that attack. Unlike Parler, Gab has a robust technology stack and operates independently of major cloud providers and payment processors. They were kicked off all those platforms years ago [1], just as Parler is getting evicted from them now. I suspect Gab will replace Parler as the platform of choice for QAnon proponents and the more fervent Trump supporters. For this reason, as well as for the extreme test case Gab represents for the 1st Amendment, I think Gab is worth watching. [0] https://www.warner.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/0/f/0f7317b1-b27b-429f-915e-e8187e1fb4e5/EB1EAF925FA2AFBA8219B7DBF485ECB0.letter-to-social-media-re-capitol-attack---gab.pdf https://www.warner.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/0/f/0f7317... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_(social_network)#2019%E2%80%93present https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_(social_network)#2019%E2%8...

Karunamon 6y ago

We have written to Google, Microsoft, and other companies in the Valley to advise them that their shortsighted boycott – one motivated by partisan political considerations and pressure campaigns – has had the side effect of denying us access to technologies we need such as PhotoDNA. This is a problem. If you don't like gab, fine, but any social network running at scale is going to need assistance in keeping child sexual abuse material away. When your partisan poo-flinging contributes to the victimization of children, it's time to step back and reassess.

kitotik 6y ago
Well played. The “think of the children” trick is almost always effective and difficult to counter.
- Karunamon 6y ago
  This is no "play". I hadn't known until now that SV's ideologically-motivated hatred of alternative social networks had kept Gab from having decent CSA mitigation tech (I thought this was something you could get under more-or-less FRAND or as-needed terms), but apparently you need their blessing to do so. Forget partisan politics for a moment. How is that not anticompetitive?
John23832 6y ago
If Gab doesn’t have the resources to operate responsibly, and also cannot garner the support needed to do so, then it’s arguable that Gab shouldn’t exist.
- iagovar 6y ago
  Ok, lets put our entire communications into the hands of a handful of corporations. What could go wrong.
  - John23832 6y ago
    That’s not what I said at all. It’s just gabs responsibility to maintain their standards on their own.

Dotnaught 6y ago

Gab claims to provide "what appears, after this week’s events on Twitter, to be the last place on the Internet where the First Amendment exists." The First Amendment constrains the US government; it does not address the conduct of private companies like Gab.

zionic 6y ago
The first amendment does not exist in a vacuum, it is based on an ideal so prevalent and powerful at the time it was literally the first thing they thought to include. Supporting freedom of speech is a moral imperative, and if your only defense of companies that suppress free expression is “well, it’s not technically illegal” maybe it’s time to take a long look in the mirror.
- betterunix2 6y ago
  It was not the first thing they thought to include, it is an amendment -- literally something they did not bother to include when the wrote the original constitution. It is also very clear from the context and time at which it was written that the "speech" referred to in the first amendment is political discourse, not speech in general. Plotting a violent overthrow of the government is not what the Founders had in mind, something that they themselves made clear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_sedition_act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_sedition_act See the part about making false statements critical of the US government? Funny how Gab was created in response to Twitter taking action to stop people from doing exactly that on their platform. Whatever free speech ideal Gab stands for is not what people who ratified the first amendment had in mind.
- esoterica 6y ago
  If you think supporting free speech is a moral imperative even for private companies, why do keep posting on a heavily moderated forum like HN that regularly bans people for trolling and being rude? Is that a tacit admission that censorship is sometimes desirable? If you were consistent about applying your principles you would boycott HN too.

sakebomb 6y ago

I wonder if Warner actually will read this... Most likely not. Unfortunate because Gab actually cares about handling malicious situations correctly. If section 230 is upheld, this would protect Gab, but it seems like certain groups just want to shutdown anything that does not conform to their views.

betterunix2 6y ago

Ah yes, the middle schooler's understanding of free speech, where "political discourse" includes plotting terrorist attacks.

pdonis 6y ago
You do understand that Gab specifically states that they are taking measures to stop bad actors from using their platform, right?
- betterunix2 6y ago
  They may say so, but the fact is that (1) their platform is popular among domestic terrorists and (2) they trumpeted their free speech ideals in response to a request to preserve information related to a recent terrorist attack that was organized (in part) on their platform...
  - pdonis 6y ago
    I guess you either didn't read or don't care to acknowledge this part of the letter either, then: "We strongly encourage you to not believe the vicious smears you might read about Gab which our partisan detractors in the media, who want to abolish American-style free speech, frequently publish."
valvar 6y ago
Did you read the article?

dvt 6y ago

> Gab exists to promote freedom of speech, by which we mean all speech which is protected speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. No more, no less. I'm a free speech absolutist, but violent speech, "fighting words," insurrectionist speech, etc. are not protected under any free speech doctrine. Free speech isn't some carte blanche that allows anyone to say anything at any time. That's not how it works†. I've argued in favor of free speech here on HN (and got the downvotes to prove it) more times than I can remember. But this letter by Gab is absolutely disingenuous. Eric Coomer, a Dominion executive, for example, is not a public person. He has received death threats and is currently in a secure location due to credible threats to his family, children, and parents. At this very moment, on Gab TV, we have a live channel discussing his alleged fixing of votes (featuring Lin Wood). I mean, this is a blatant attack on a private person that has been proven to incite violence. This has nothing to do with free speech, and Gab is an absolute cesspool of delusional QAnon conspiracies, anti-vaxxers, and adjacent movements. They're going to have a hard time monetizing (just as 4chan did). † See Mill's Harm Principle.

CancelFirefox 6y ago
> Gab is an absolute cesspool of delusional QAnon conspiracies I see a lot of people say this but I've never seen anyone back it up with sources. What is the metric for "absolute cesspool of delusional QAnon conspiracies" and what makes Gab fit that metric better than Facebook or Twitter?
- iagovar 6y ago
  If I had to bet, most people who talk about Gab, never had a Gab account, and got his info from your average political commentator threads in Twitter and your average media pieces. Right-wing people has the right to exist, and should have a place to discuss their stuff. If you want to close every platform they have because you find they host people with extremist views, then close all the social media all together. If anyone here presumes that the conditions that allowed Donald Trump in office will disappear because you can deplatform such people, then good luck.
  - 6y ago

John23832 6y ago

> our contemporaries in the Valley forget the social importance of letting off steam and of exposing bad ideas, and bad people, to public scrutiny. Interesting. Within this screed, Gab laments that other Silicon Valley forces have distanced themselves from it. One could argue that public scrutiny of ideals also involves reactions to those same ideals. Why is the distancing and refusal to do business with Gab (by individuals or businesses) not seen as valid by Gab? It seems hypocritical.

throwaway894345 6y ago
I don't have any particular affinity for Gab, but TFA pretty clearly addresses your concern: namely, they never claim that free speech compels SV companies from associating with Gab, rather that the lack of cooperation makes it difficult for Gab to police illegal speech. I don't know the extent to which that claim is true, but it's a different claim altogether than the one you are perceiving.
- John23832 6y ago
  That makes moderation Gab’s responsibility. Wanting a space that operates outside of the accepted norms means that you have to maintain that space on your own. If you can’t do that to the legal requirements, you shouldn’t exist.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    Is the implication that Gab is falling short of legal requirements, or merely that Gab isn't able to do as well as it could?
    - John23832 6y ago
      The implication is that none of the other Silicon Valley companies have a responsibility to help gab police its platform, that responsibility is gab’s. If gab truly valued its ability to police its site, and requires tools and help, then it would be a better citizen to ensure that help. “I’ll do what I want, and you must enable it.” isn’t a valid argument.

thih9 6y ago

For people unfamiliar with Gab, from Wikipedia: > Gab is an American alt-tech social networking service known for its far-right and extremist userbase. (...) Gab claims to promote free speech and individual liberty, though these statements have been criticized as being a shield for its alt-right and extremist ecosystem. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_(social_network) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_(social_network)

alangibson 6y ago

Here's an old article by Dershowitz that everyone concerned with the limits of free speech should read https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/89jan/dershowitz.htm https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/89jan/dershowit...

claytongulick 6y ago

Given the diminishing appetite for free expression in most of the online platforms these days, this letter is particularly refreshing. I've been thinking a lot about what a modern suppression-free platform would look like. I recall fondly the wild-west crazy freedom of the early IRC in all its magnificence and horror. I wonder if something could be done with inspiration from Mastodon and IPFS over WebRTC. I've also been thinking a lot about what a distributed web index/search platform would look like with indexeddb and WebRTC.

tbenst 6y ago

A bit of an odd letter, since Warner’s letter isn’t asking for documents but rather establishing a “duty to preserve” [1] due to high likelihood of impending litigation. IIUC, the senator’s letter is about all that can be done while the Senate is not in session. Insurrections are not protected free speech, and Gab may have liability. No doubt this will be litigated, and if Gab were to delete content now (as opposed to removing access), this might constitute obstruction of justice. [1] https://www.kramerlevin.com/images/content/2/5/v4/2562/Reasonable-20Anticipation-20of-20Litigation-20Under-20FRCP-2037-e-20Triggers-20and-20Limits.pdf https://www.kramerlevin.com/images/content/2/5/v4/2562/Reaso...

axguscbklp 6y ago

Something I've been wondering... so let's say I want to put a social media platform that I dislike out of business. Perhaps the platform is full of my political opponents, or maybe it's a business competitor of mine. What's to stop me from just posting a bunch of incitements to violence on the platform through a series of proxies (human and/or technological) until they get nuked?

claytongulick 6y ago

And now this article has been flagged. Ironic, given that the subject matter is the suppression of speech in online platforms.

ykevinator 6y ago

I'm really enjoying the reckoning. They get what they deserve and so do all the loyalists.