6 ms·

Gab is a site that caters to hate groups. I guess the targets of their hatred take it personally. That seems rational to me.

errantmind 6y ago
Can you provide some evidence they catered to hate groups? It was my understanding they attracted hate groups due to their policy of 'free speech', but did not specifically cater to them
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- pii 6y ago
  > I live under a rock
- bastawhiz 6y ago
  Sorry, what does this even mean? What does it mean to "cater to hate groups" beyond promising them safe harbor? Do you think they have a "Hate" button instead of a Like button? A search engine for minorities to dox? Lynch mob organizing features? I really don't know how much more catered you can get beyond saying "we're the site you want to use, but without the pesky rules." Trying to dissect the semantics here is pedantry beyond my comprehension.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- dave_sullivan 6y ago
  Conservative: I have been censored for my conservative views Me: Holy shit! You were censored for wanting lower taxes? Con: LOL no...no not those views Me: So....deregulation? Con: Haha no not those views either Me: Which views, exactly? Con: Oh, you know the ones
  - Turing_Machine 6y ago
    Do you genuinely believe that "debating" a cartoon parody of your opponents is a reasonable method of discourse?
    - dave_sullivan 6y ago
      "yes"
    - yeetawayhn 6y ago
      If it feels good, doesn't that make it reasonable?
  - roenxi 6y ago
    When Trump was banned from Twitter, they literally cited [0] “To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.” as a reason to ban him and claimed that it must be read as inciting violence. The other tweet wasn't as jaw droppingly banal but it was still perfectly acceptable political fare. It is pretty clear they didn't have any quotes to back up supposed incitement. There is a lack of evidence behind the innuendo. It is likely they banned him for representing conservative views. [0] https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...
    - yrro 6y ago
      Either the context around Trump's tweets shot over your head, or you are you being obtuse. The very link you provided explains the context which you completely ignore in your post.
- esperent 6y ago
  If you have a policy that allows any kind of speech, including hate speech, then you de-facto cater to hate groups. However, Gab goes further than that and quite explicitly caters to far right hate groups, as detailed in this comment over on ARS: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2021/03/gab-the-far-right-website-has-been-hacked-and-70gb-of-data-leaked/?comments=1&post=39705728&mode=quote https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2021/03/gab-t...
- anigbrowl 6y ago
  https://gab.com/ANS https://gab.com/ANS https://gab.com/CNSM https://gab.com/CNSM For example
  - cm2187 6y ago
    95 and 52 followers. Is that representative of the platform?
    - 4ggr0 6y ago
      Well, I don't really care how many followers these accounts have - How many look at their posts daily withouth following the account, as not to "expose" themselves. The American National Socialist shows a huge group of Nazis plus a Swastika in their banner picture, does it really matter then how many followers they have? Not that it's representative, but it is certainly a "feature" of gab.
    - anigbrowl 6y ago
      The request was for evidence about whether Gab caters to hate groups. I chose examples for their glaringly obvious nature as opposed to their popularity.
akyu 6y ago
If there is suspicion of crime, the government can get a subpoena. Otherwise, innocent until proven guilty. This seems rational to me.
- iagovar 6y ago
  > innocent until proven guilty That's not cool anymore.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
0xy 6y ago
Using this logic, Facebook is a site that caters to hate groups, mass murders and sexual predators. Your standard seems to be that one drop poisons the well, given that all social media is guilty of this accusation.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- anigbrowl 6y ago
  Yes, this is a frequent and somewhat well-founded critique of FB, which has been accused on multiple occasions of knowingly/negligently facilitating violations of human rights at scale, despite repeated warnings about the risks. Facebook PR has tended to oscillate between happy-sounding blurb about upholding free speech, building communities etc., and zapping large numbers of problematic accounts and groups after the company has been embarrassed, though without any semblance of external accountability. It's certainly not FB's raison d'etre but it has been an ongoing problem that the firm has been reluctant to confront.
s9w 6y ago
hate is a made up word
dehrmann 6y ago
I think we're still in gray area around speech restrictions. What actually worries me is the glee people are taking in it. Yes, maybe a particular case did cross the line and incited violence, but it's a something something very serious and scary, not something to celebrate.
- ggggtez 6y ago
  I think the gray area is why the far right thinks that "free speech" means "free-from-consequences speech". They have their free speech already. They go on various platforms, and say whatever they want until people get mad and private companies make a money-based decision to ban them. According to the libertarian view of the world: this is all working exactly as intended. Everyone in the system is making a private decision and speaking with their wallets.
  - nailer 6y ago
    > They go on various platforms, and say whatever they want until people get mad and private companies make a money-based decision to ban them. The far right is general taken to mean ultra nationalists that attack minority groups. Every major social network has hate speech in their terms of service, and very few people complaining about censorship are complaining about enforcement of rules against actual hate speech.
    - ggggtez 6y ago
      > very few people complaining about censorship are complaining about enforcement of rules against actual hate speech. Citation needed. But honestly, it doesn't matter because it doesn't change the fact that this is the libertarian ideal situation. The government is not mandating anything. All "cancel culture" is created from private individuals making their own private decisions, and that includes corporations banning anyone they like for any reason. It's right there in the name "culture". No one is required to do anything, it's just that it's an advantageous decision at the cultural level to do what most people want. Any suggestion that there is a problem with this is in contradiction to the libertarian idea of free speech.
kypro 6y ago
I'm on Gab because Twitter was banning users like zerohedge and random joke accounts for seemingly no (or very little) reason. I literally just post about finance on Gab and I've never personally seen anything hateful on there. I'm not saying it doesn't exist - I don't follow those kinds of users anyway - but I've seen plenty of hate on Twitter and I've never felt Gab was particularly hateful or radical.
splintercell 6y ago
And if other side hears these arguments and considers it to be an equal justification to the similar behavior but to your side?

errantmind 6y ago

Can you provide some evidence they catered to hate groups? It was my understanding they attracted hate groups due to their policy of 'free speech', but did not specifically cater to them

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
pii 6y ago
> I live under a rock
bastawhiz 6y ago
Sorry, what does this even mean? What does it mean to "cater to hate groups" beyond promising them safe harbor? Do you think they have a "Hate" button instead of a Like button? A search engine for minorities to dox? Lynch mob organizing features? I really don't know how much more catered you can get beyond saying "we're the site you want to use, but without the pesky rules." Trying to dissect the semantics here is pedantry beyond my comprehension.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
dave_sullivan 6y ago
Conservative: I have been censored for my conservative views Me: Holy shit! You were censored for wanting lower taxes? Con: LOL no...no not those views Me: So....deregulation? Con: Haha no not those views either Me: Which views, exactly? Con: Oh, you know the ones
- Turing_Machine 6y ago
  Do you genuinely believe that "debating" a cartoon parody of your opponents is a reasonable method of discourse?
  - dave_sullivan 6y ago
    "yes"
  - yeetawayhn 6y ago
    If it feels good, doesn't that make it reasonable?
- roenxi 6y ago
  When Trump was banned from Twitter, they literally cited [0] “To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.” as a reason to ban him and claimed that it must be read as inciting violence. The other tweet wasn't as jaw droppingly banal but it was still perfectly acceptable political fare. It is pretty clear they didn't have any quotes to back up supposed incitement. There is a lack of evidence behind the innuendo. It is likely they banned him for representing conservative views. [0] https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...
  - yrro 6y ago
    Either the context around Trump's tweets shot over your head, or you are you being obtuse. The very link you provided explains the context which you completely ignore in your post.
esperent 6y ago
If you have a policy that allows any kind of speech, including hate speech, then you de-facto cater to hate groups. However, Gab goes further than that and quite explicitly caters to far right hate groups, as detailed in this comment over on ARS: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2021/03/gab-the-far-right-website-has-been-hacked-and-70gb-of-data-leaked/?comments=1&post=39705728&mode=quote https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2021/03/gab-t...
anigbrowl 6y ago
https://gab.com/ANS https://gab.com/ANS https://gab.com/CNSM https://gab.com/CNSM For example
- cm2187 6y ago
  95 and 52 followers. Is that representative of the platform?
  - 4ggr0 6y ago
    Well, I don't really care how many followers these accounts have - How many look at their posts daily withouth following the account, as not to "expose" themselves. The American National Socialist shows a huge group of Nazis plus a Swastika in their banner picture, does it really matter then how many followers they have? Not that it's representative, but it is certainly a "feature" of gab.
  - anigbrowl 6y ago
    The request was for evidence about whether Gab caters to hate groups. I chose examples for their glaringly obvious nature as opposed to their popularity.

akyu 6y ago

If there is suspicion of crime, the government can get a subpoena. Otherwise, innocent until proven guilty. This seems rational to me.

iagovar 6y ago
> innocent until proven guilty That's not cool anymore.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

0xy 6y ago

Using this logic, Facebook is a site that caters to hate groups, mass murders and sexual predators. Your standard seems to be that one drop poisons the well, given that all social media is guilty of this accusation.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
anigbrowl 6y ago
Yes, this is a frequent and somewhat well-founded critique of FB, which has been accused on multiple occasions of knowingly/negligently facilitating violations of human rights at scale, despite repeated warnings about the risks. Facebook PR has tended to oscillate between happy-sounding blurb about upholding free speech, building communities etc., and zapping large numbers of problematic accounts and groups after the company has been embarrassed, though without any semblance of external accountability. It's certainly not FB's raison d'etre but it has been an ongoing problem that the firm has been reluctant to confront.

s9w 6y ago

hate is a made up word

dehrmann 6y ago

I think we're still in gray area around speech restrictions. What actually worries me is the glee people are taking in it. Yes, maybe a particular case did cross the line and incited violence, but it's a something something very serious and scary, not something to celebrate.

ggggtez 6y ago
I think the gray area is why the far right thinks that "free speech" means "free-from-consequences speech". They have their free speech already. They go on various platforms, and say whatever they want until people get mad and private companies make a money-based decision to ban them. According to the libertarian view of the world: this is all working exactly as intended. Everyone in the system is making a private decision and speaking with their wallets.
- nailer 6y ago
  > They go on various platforms, and say whatever they want until people get mad and private companies make a money-based decision to ban them. The far right is general taken to mean ultra nationalists that attack minority groups. Every major social network has hate speech in their terms of service, and very few people complaining about censorship are complaining about enforcement of rules against actual hate speech.
  - ggggtez 6y ago
    > very few people complaining about censorship are complaining about enforcement of rules against actual hate speech. Citation needed. But honestly, it doesn't matter because it doesn't change the fact that this is the libertarian ideal situation. The government is not mandating anything. All "cancel culture" is created from private individuals making their own private decisions, and that includes corporations banning anyone they like for any reason. It's right there in the name "culture". No one is required to do anything, it's just that it's an advantageous decision at the cultural level to do what most people want. Any suggestion that there is a problem with this is in contradiction to the libertarian idea of free speech.

kypro 6y ago

I'm on Gab because Twitter was banning users like zerohedge and random joke accounts for seemingly no (or very little) reason. I literally just post about finance on Gab and I've never personally seen anything hateful on there. I'm not saying it doesn't exist - I don't follow those kinds of users anyway - but I've seen plenty of hate on Twitter and I've never felt Gab was particularly hateful or radical.

splintercell 6y ago

And if other side hears these arguments and considers it to be an equal justification to the similar behavior but to your side?