4 ms·

> 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

> 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.
      - throwaway894345 6y ago
        That seems to be a straw man argument. There’s a difference between saying “SV companies are required to help” and “We could do better if SV companies helped”. Gab appears to be saying the latter and to be clear, it appears to be meeting the standards of the law, so we’re talking about going above and beyond what the law requires.
copperwater69 6y ago
I believe the point is that it denies them the tools they could use to put an end to the sort of behaviour SV is actually boycotting. You'll see in the 'screed' they referred to PhotoDNA by microsoft which is used to detect, disrupt and report child abuse material. Can you defend denying Gab the tools it needs to efficiently remove material of that nature?
- John23832 6y ago
  Nobody owes Gab. It’s owners saw what they saw was a gap in a consumer need, and decided to fill it. With that come responsibility. If they can’t moderate or fulfill all their legal responsibilities, with help or at worst on their own, they shouldn’t exist.
  - Karunamon 6y ago
    Forget "legal responsibilities" - they meet them in whole by deleting CSA (and other literally illegal material) when it's found and ideally alerting the proper authorities. Now, let's talk about CSA in general. Microsoft and friends might not have any legal obligation whatsoever to help Gab out, but I'd argue they have a moral one.

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.
    - throwaway894345 6y ago
      That seems to be a straw man argument. There’s a difference between saying “SV companies are required to help” and “We could do better if SV companies helped”. Gab appears to be saying the latter and to be clear, it appears to be meeting the standards of the law, so we’re talking about going above and beyond what the law requires.

copperwater69 6y ago

I believe the point is that it denies them the tools they could use to put an end to the sort of behaviour SV is actually boycotting. You'll see in the 'screed' they referred to PhotoDNA by microsoft which is used to detect, disrupt and report child abuse material. Can you defend denying Gab the tools it needs to efficiently remove material of that nature?

John23832 6y ago
Nobody owes Gab. It’s owners saw what they saw was a gap in a consumer need, and decided to fill it. With that come responsibility. If they can’t moderate or fulfill all their legal responsibilities, with help or at worst on their own, they shouldn’t exist.
- Karunamon 6y ago
  Forget "legal responsibilities" - they meet them in whole by deleting CSA (and other literally illegal material) when it's found and ideally alerting the proper authorities. Now, let's talk about CSA in general. Microsoft and friends might not have any legal obligation whatsoever to help Gab out, but I'd argue they have a moral one.