18 ms·
Gab.com’s Response to Congress
- satronaut 5y agowe need that web 3.0 now more than ever
- sergiotapia 5y agoThe future is decentralized, how do we make it happen? It makes me sad that my children and their children are heading towards a sanitized internet where only the corporate mainstream is allowed and the rest is crucified.
- satronaut 5y agoyeah, it's scary how all of the internet is basically being hosted on amazon and logged on to using google or facebook
- dbbk 5y agoI thought the Dark Web already exists?
- nobody9999 5y agoStart with high speed (1gb/sec+) symmetric consumer network links and IPv6. Easily implemented, decentralized/self-hosted platforms already exist, but you can't stream/share your vacation videos with your large family because your upload capacity sucks. Centralized services exist because individuals don't have the capacity to support a Mastodon or Diaspora instance on their own network connections. And more's the pity.
- gruez 5y agoweb 3.0 as in "fediverse" or "blockchain smart contracts"? I've seen that term used to refer to either.
- ixtli 5y agoA private company probably shouldn’t be allowed to interpret the constitution to this degree. I wonder if someone will sue and SCOTUS will rule.
- calvin 5y agoThe constitution protects all American people and businesses. People should absolutely study it, understand it, and use it as part of their reasoning when it comes to responses to government or other legal requests.
- pfortuny 5y agoHonestly, what is the problem?
- jrochkind1 5y agoI'm not following what you mean, what is it you say they shouldn't be allowed to do? The first ammendment does not apply to private companies at all -- well, it applies in that it gives them free speach rights themselves, so if you mean by "shouldn't be allowed to interpret" that they shouldn't be legally able to express this opinion, well, that'd be a first ammendment problem. But it doesn't restrict private company's behavior at all. Private companies are not required by the first ammendment to give anyone free speech at all. Which is a kind of weird thing in this statement, they are speaking as if the first ammendment somehow requires them to do this, or as if private companies should be prevented from limiting speech (in general, that would in fact be the first ammendment problem, to compel the private company to provide a platform! although there are ways around that). But as legally weird or incorrect as I think their reasoning or interpretation of the constitution, I don't know why we would think they wouldn't be "allowed" to express a wrong opinion. Under what grounds do you think someone would have a claim to sue them? Why do you think it would make it to the supreme court? I think you may not have an educated legal basis for that opinion, but you're still allowed to have it and express it!
- Ajedi32 5y ago> they are speaking as if the first ammendment somehow requires them to do this What portion of their statement are you referring to? I didn't notice anything in this post suggesting that they're required to support free speech, only that they agree with the underlying principles which inspired that provision in the constitution.
- gootler 5y agoPlease shut that shit down. Facebook and Twitter is where it's at.
- voodoologic 5y agoSeems that gab is conflating privacy with free speech.
- encryptluks2 5y agoFunny they say they protect free speech when I was promptly banned from there for posting anti-Trump comments. encryptluks2 FSM is real
- meerita 5y agoVague claim. Show us what you posted. I have read anti-trump comments every day since the beginnings of Gab.
- happytoexplain 5y agoNote that Trump supporters constantly cite being "shouted down" as a form of censorship, which, legitimate or not, is much more deeply hypocritical.
- encryptluks2 5y agoHow am I supposed to show you what I posted when my account was banned? If I recall, it had something to do with being open to adopting QAnon and extremist Trump supporters kids once they were taken away from their parents because I thought they'd go full domestic terrorist after he lost the election. I guess I was right afterall.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- fragileone 5y ago> American citizens may have freedom of speech, but they find themselves with vanishingly few public forums in which to exercise it fully. Well put. As we've also seen from numerous leaks and incidents over the years, big business and government often works hand-in-hand, with revolving door policies and barely legal indirect bribes happening regularly. That the government is now seeking to curtail the First Amendment by exerting pressure on these companies should be alarming to anyone.
- phailhaus 5y agoWhat pressure? Gab is not in trouble. You just don't have the right to conspire to overthrow the government. It's well-understood that Gab is not in any danger, but its members are if they did.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- rscoots 5y agoThere are obvious ways the govt can pressure people who've committed no criminal act. Being put on a no fly list or terrorist watch list are some examples. Happened all the time during the war on terror.
- colonelpopcorn 5y agoConspiring to overthrow the government is a national pastime in these "13 colonies". "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." Just because the causes have not been enumerated lucidly or coherently doesn't mean that there's not two different peoples in the USA who would like to dissolve the political bands connecting them to one another.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- wobblyasp 5y agoFeels like Gab just made itself a target of direct investigation. While you may not agree with how Congress acts, thumbing your nose at them directly is a great way to have the focus put solely on you.
- mountainb 5y agoSo what? Not the end of the world. The government's not that good at its job. You don't have to be that afraid of it.
- tyree731 5y agoThe government has a monopoly on force. There are plenty of reasons to be afraid of it.
- sparrish 5y agoNo, my friend. It does not. The citizens have gun rights and we have a LOT of guns. And if you think millions with rifles and handguns can't stop the US government, you've not been paying attention to what happened in Afghanistan.
- smaryjerry 5y agoThe government has the monopoly on the legal system allowing you to use the guns. Afghanistan only worked because of complete lack of government.
- mountainb 5y agoNo it doesn't. The government operates part of the legal system. It's an oppositional system. You can fight the government and get a favorable outcome. It happens every day in all 50 states. People are so spooked of a weak, inefficient government staffed by underpaid and corrupt losers. Sure, you can't win every time, but it's not like it's impossible. People just want to build up the government to be something it isn't... it's not god: it's mostly just a bunch of fat people in Washington who couldn't make it in the private sector.
- tibbar 5y ago> Gab does not have (and has never had) such records in its care or control In response to a request for all “related communications” to terrorism/Jan. 6 etc. It strains belief that they haven’t even discussed these topics internally.
- commandlinefan 5y agoI used to work for a former U.S. Marine who had a good quote - "don't write when you can speak, don't speak when you can nod, and don't nod when you can wink".
- eli 5y agoThat quote is at least a 100 years old, but it's pretty hard to follow in practice. Especially at a digital communications company!
- commandlinefan 5y agoIf you know the original source I'd be curious to hear it.
- eli 5y agoAllegedly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Lomasney https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Lomasney Eliot Spitzer (!) infamously added the addendum "And never put anything in email"
- vayeate 5y agoModern equivalent: don't text or email when you can call, don't call when you can speak face to face, don't speak face to face if you can wink you see powerful people following this advice all the time, like with Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch’s tarmac meeting. He flew in a plane to talk face to face just to ensure it wouldn't get recorded.
- tootie 5y agoDon't set a meeting when you can email, don't email when you can slack, don't slack when you can do a :thumbsup: emoji one someone else's comment
- rodikana 5y ago10/10 on IASIP title card usage, 1/10 on platform moderation
- pradn 5y agoIt's amazing that a company did this for such a post. I personally appreciate it, but I doubt people in Congress would find it funny - more likely flippant.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago> All internal or external reviews, studies, reports, data, analyses, and related communications regarding your platform and (i) misinformation, disinformation and malinformation relating to the 2020 election; (ii) efforts to overturn, challenge, or otherwise interfere with the 2020 election or the certification of electoral college results; (iii) Domestic violent extremists, etc.; and (iv) foreign malign influence in the 2020 election etc. Gab does not have (and has never had) such records in its care, custody or control. Does this mean they keep zero user records or server logs? It's also ironic to claim "sunlight is the best disinfectant, electric light the most efficient policeman" only to protest in response to a lawful demand to preserve records. (Question 7.)
- 542458 5y agoAgreed that their claim of having literally zero strains credibility. This kind of feels like gab setting themselves up for a PR stunt lawsuit.
- mc32 5y agoYou’re mixing two distinct things. Sunlight is the best disinfectant when it comes to freedom of speech, but that does not imply the government should have full access to the communication of individuals and trounce the fourth amendment. Put it this way, if the government wanted to get all comms around antifa, or any other anti gov anti police protests, would that be okay?
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago> Sunlight is the best disinfectant when it comes to freedom of speech, but that does not imply the government should have full access to the communication of individuals and trounce the fourth amendment Congress isn't claiming full access. It's asking Gab to preserve certain information while it goes through due process. You have a right to free speech, and the government has the right to investigate persons who threaten violent insurrection.
- mc32 5y ago
- symlinkk 5y agoThis should be an interesting comment section, because HN was almost unanimously opposed to Gab and Parler around the time of the capitol riots, but recently I’ve seen more of a pro free speech angle here, especially as it relates to Facebook censoring links in private messages.
- smaryjerry 5y agoWe do live in a world where everything is either black or white. The man is evil so everything he says is evil kind of thinking. Here Gabs response is 100% on point and how we all imagine the internet should be where they don’t tell you what to believe. Doesn’t make everything they do right but it does make a lot of sense this time.
- pauldavis 5y agoWow, look at the previous post on that site, from the same guy: "They are rigging elections, they are botching troop withdrawals to flood western countries with refugees, the American border is being invaded by hundreds of thousands of people, they are buying up single family homes and pricing you out of the market, they are printing endless money and inflating your currency."
- allsystemsgo 5y agoI mean, he’s using his first amendment rights. That’s the point. What does his prior comments have to do with this?
- Ajedi32 5y agoTribalism. "Look! This person disagrees with you on this other unrelated topic. He's with the enemy, all his opinions are invalid!" Kind of a sad state of affairs, but that's where we're at right now with political discourse in the United States. (And probably the whole world, to some extent. It's human nature.)
- uniqueid 5y agoIt's a reminder that Torba didn't create Gab to facilitate 'free speech'. Gab is a site that censors 'obscenity' and whose CEO refuses to deal with journalists if they don't practise the same religion as him. Gab exists only to facilitate far-right extremism, and 'hate speech' is the only form of unpopular speech for which Torba shows enthusiasm.
- Cyberthal 5y agoYeah, no. You can curse all you like on Gab. Porn is censored. There is a natural segregation between the Internet that is for porn, and the rest of it. For bandwidth reasons alone.
- kypro 5y agoEh, I also hate it when people have differing opinions to myself. Someone should really do something about this.
- thrwaway9871 5y agoFunny test: this post has 61 votes, 16 comments, is 21 minutes old and is on front page. It will be "dead" and off the front page in the next hour if usual hn moderation is applied. This usually happens to thread where majority of comments go against the grain. Edit: thread is a bit over 1 hour old, 125 points, 119 comments and on page 4. All the other threads on page 4 are of comparable vote/comment count but at least 20hrs old. If you scroll through page 4 you will not find a single thread as popular and as fresh as this one there. Maybe i'm biased but id like to think that my prediction was at least half correct. Edit2: thread is ~1hr30min old, page 8 :)
- striking 5y agoYou should email the mods. They're very nice, and will take the time to explain the reason some item fell off the front page. Sometimes it's because a lot of people (not mods) flagged it; sometimes it's because the flame war detector is tripped and a mod may choose not to reset it. They'll tell you.
- thrwaway9871 5y agoI truly believe they are nice people. The problem is the discussion will be dead long ago before that happens. Can you confirm this thread is around page four or five at the moment?
- cobrabyte 5y agoYeah, that didn't take long. Polarizing topic, for sure.
- javajosh 5y agoIt's almost certainly the right call, in general. My other top-level comment is the only one trying to come up with novel solutions. Most of the other comments are just rehashing the same old stuff.
- aww_dang 5y agoI assume most of us are heavily invested in the Internet as a form of earning. The future of censorship and regulation online seems like a relevant topic, even if I don't publish political material. A bit disappointing to see this one go by the wayside. It is almost as if Internet freedom is only relevant here when it relates to partisan's favored champion in the arena. "...and there was no one left to speak for me"
- voodoologic 5y agoContrary to their claim, I believe they do keep records. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/11/gab-hack-neo-nazis-qanon-conspiracy-theories https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/11/gab-hack-neo-n...
- smaryjerry 5y agoIf you don’t classify misinformation, you can’t give information on it. It actually makes total sense.
- h2odragon 5y agoI tried gab, briefly; pissed folks there off by explaining (too plainly) that a "foot job" is different from a pedicure. anyone want to bet Gab's internal operations haven't been penetrated and monitored by several antagonistic parties since shortly after their inception? With all respect to their efforts, I looked at some of the code they posted, and didn't see anything to indicate they'll have much luck protecting their operations against the high grade, ideologically motivated opposition they've drawn.
- javajosh 5y agoAs a practical matter, we cannot ignore the effect of technology on speech. To wit, what I see going on are the production of more and more powerful self-sustaining nuclear reactions of ignorance. The nuclear fission analogy is apt, because it requires a certain level of "critical mass" for any idea to catch on. Technology accelerates greatly the rate at which like-minded people can accumulate in the same, dense space; the neutrons are likes and comments; the explosion is rage and violence. Technology has had this problem for a long time - the yellow newspapers of the 18th century arguably started it; the phenomena of toxic radio personalities began immediately after radio was invented. Goebbel's movie propaganda was a critical part of Hitler's rise to power. The internet, and platforms like Twitter, Reddit, Gab, 4chan, take this to a whole new level. They are the ultra-centerfuges of online discourse, distilling and concentrating the extremes of human discourse into a dense, self-sustaining mass of negativity. And yet we generally don't get an equal and opposite mass of positivity. I believe the central reason is that humans are super biased to address human negativity, rightly judging it to be the greatest threat at small scale, but wrongly judging it at scale. For example, the 9/11 attacks killed ~2,000 people. Car accidents in the US in 2001 killed ~30,000 people. But one event was rooted in negativity - hatred, rage - and the other was not. So one got trillions applied to it's solution, and the other got nothing. In a worldwide search of 7B people, I believe you can find a self-sustaining mass of hatred on every side of every topic. We may need a modification to the free speech law in the presence of a sea-change in speech technology. Perhaps "slow speech" (offline, or online and decentralized) should remain perfectly free, but "fast speech" (online and centralized) should be censored - to defuse any given critical mass that threatens to explode into hatred and rage. I think it would also be useful to enforce a convention that differentiates between speech and paid-for speech. In this way we can more accurately identify who is speaking as a form of expression, and who is speaking as a means to an economic end. The former should be protected from censorship, and the latter should not.
- code_duck 5y agoI was on board until it got to their misunderstandings of the first amendment. >our refusal to change our First Amendment-based moderation policy This seems like a typical misunderstanding of the First Amendment, which only restricts government action. >Gab has been the subject of a years-long smear campaign by activist groups and boycotted by virtually every technology company of consequence – Amazon, Apple, Coinbase, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, PayPal, Stripe, and Visa included – because of our refusal to change our First Amendment-based moderation policy. This article is the most reasonably phrased 'Big Tech is violating my 1st Amendment rights' but it is still not valid. It's open to interpretation whether this is attributable to the cause they state. >The reality of social media content moderation practices today is that large swathes of commonly-held viewpoints and belief systems are systematically discriminated against on the Internet’s largest websites This is a non-sequitur following discussion of the first amendment. >American citizens may have freedom of speech, but they find themselves with vanishingly few public forums in which to exercise it fully. I wonder whether Gab agrees that businesses have a right to refuse service to anyone arbitrarily, such as not making a cake for a gay couple. >Our web properties are among only a handful on the Internet where Madison’s “general intercourse of sentiments” can presently flow unimpeded by corporate interests, opaquely funded NGOs, and activist groups I am very skeptical of that claim. Oh, and I am very open to anyone who would like to explain to me how this is incorrect.
- bambax 5y ago> we believe – as Justice Brandeis did – that “sunlight is the best disinfectant, electric light the most efficient policeman.” Not true. There is no evidence that electric light helps deter crime (and of course sunlight is not a disinfectant either). https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:33WBZAQmPFQJ:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/11/02/what-actually-happens-to-crime-when-the-lights-are-on-as-rick-perry-suggests/ https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:33WBZA...
- lvass 5y agoSunlight does inactivate infectious agents, like SARS-CoV-2[0]. There are studies suggesting street lighting is a crime deterrent such as[1]. [0]https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/222/2/214/5841129 https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/222/2/214/5841129 [1]https://www.nber.org/papers/w25798 https://www.nber.org/papers/w25798
- josephcsible 5y agoThat's an obvious metaphor. Why are you interpreting it literally?
- bambax 5y agoThe first response to my comment (by lvass) insists, with apparent seriousness, that it is literally true. I think it is not superfluous to mention it isn't. Also, how does it work as a metaphor? What are the metaphorical "infections" that "sunlight" defeats? Conspiracies? Fake news? There has never been more information available, and there also has never been more conspiracies and stupid theories about everything. So, also as a metaphor, sunlight is not a disinfectant.
- tootie 5y ago"In each case, these people – good people, normal people without political power – were persecuted because their viewpoints were, in one way or another, perceived as a threat to the established order" That's true, but the investigation is specifically about criminal actions, not persecution for beliefs. And if I am reading the subpoena correctly, they're basically looking for data on moderation activity and policies. That would seem be a purely corporate function and not related to actual user postings or any attempt at user identification. Gab claims they are very responsive to government requests related to criminal activity or foreign influence campaigns and that seems to be all they are investigating with this request. If they want to see what users are talking about, they can go in the front door like everyone else. And if they identify criminal activity, they will issue subpoenas or warrants. Correct me if I'm wrong.
- ppp_qqq 5y agoNot exactly. Some points are about Gab's policing. But the subpoena requires all "data" about "misinformation", "disinformation", "efforts to challenge election results", etc. Why does data about people freely expressing/protesting viewpoints should be handed to government? It is also not clear why people /talking/ about overturning election is criminal, if they do nothing? Second, when government need to know about criminal activities, they should specify who is it that they want to investigate and for what case, similar to how law enforcement do with a judge request, and not just scan everyone in the platform.
- phnofive 5y agoSmall nit: this is a request, which Gab can essentially ignore. I imagine their response to a subpoena would be similar, though.
- tootie 5y agoMy reading is that they are not asking "give us your disinformation" they are asking for their policies and data regarding the moderation of disinformation. Their response to the request seems to more or less answer the request by saying "we don't have any because we consciously don't try". This request appears to also be just a request. Nor a subpoena. But that being said, Congress isn't law enforcement. They're allowed issue subpoenas for information relevant to informing legislation. Mark Zuckerberg wasn't under indictment, nor was a material witness when he testified to Congress. They just wanted a public forum to understand how social media functions, how it could function and if additional oversight was warranted.
- disease 5y agoMaybe the question everyone should be asking is: why is there such an insatiable desire among a large part of America for white supremacist and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories? What is the root cause? All of this "political football" seems to just be scraping the surface of what is really going on.
- slumdev 5y agoAsk yourself: Is someone a white supremacist simply because he thinks his country ought to defend its borders? That every citizen ought to be given the same opportunities but not be guaranteed the same outcomes? That true racism is the belief that some races are incapable without special help? That true racism is in discriminating against the Asians, Jews, and everyone else who studied hard to do well on their SATs? That all people are of equal dignity? That people ought to be judged by the content of their character and not according to the color of their skin? What if a Black man thinks these things? Is that Black man a white supremacist? If this sounds ridiculous to you, that means there's hope. The label "white supremacist" is used to smear and excommunicate anyone who believes in these fundamentally American values that are opposed to the foreign influences attempting to destroy American culture and ideals. It's false 99.99% of the time it's used.
- bradlys 5y agoYou should really examine why people want to “defend” borders. It’s mostly racism and classism. The most effective way to defend your borders is to improve the lives of the people across the border. Yet… does anyone advocate for that? Nope… We undermine their governments and extract their resources to plunder from them instead. We create instability and allow violent regimes to be created and prosper. Could always not do that shit and help improve their lives… but not the American way… because we see those people as others who shouldn’t be near us and not like fellow human beings. (And frequently this is a white vs POC thing btw)
- debacle 5y agoI want to defend our borders. I am very pro-immigration, and I have seen firsthand the crazy hoops that well-qualified people need to jump through to come to this country, and I think those hoops are wrong. I think migrant worker programs are wrong. I think that we, as a country, are wealthy enough to let many people in and that those people will be an asset to our country. But I still want to defend our borders. I don't think that there is a dichotomy between wanting strong border protections and also being disappointed in the actions that the US government has taken for 80+ years across the globe (and domestically) in the name of freedom and democracy.
- adamrezich 5y agowhy is this flagged?
- vayeate 5y agogab platform is fairly pro far-right, as is the founder. HN crowd is susceptible to tribalism just like any other group.
- adamrezich 5y agoI thought flags weren't downvotes though...
- debacle 5y agoThey are.
- JohnTHaller 5y agoThey are sometimes, unfortunately. I'd wager there are some folks flagging a direct link from HN to a site like Gab, though.
- JohnTHaller 5y agoIf by "fairly pro far-right" you mean the founder regularly shared QAnon and far-right propaganda along with far-right conspiracy theories like the election being stolen, anti-vax, etc.
- orange_puff 5y agoI wonder if a social media site marketed as a "free speech" platform will become something center left and right people actually use rather than a haven for psychotic racists. I do not think Gab should be shut down or anything, but just take a look at the average post there.