5 ms·

Feels 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

Feels 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 ago
So 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 ago
  The government has a monopoly on force. There are plenty of reasons to be afraid of it.
  - sparrish 5y ago
    No, 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 ago
      The 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 ago
        No 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.
cobrabyte 5y ago
I may be out of the loop a bit, but do these "requests" have any real power? It seems like subpoenas would have been the appropriate legal instrument if they needed to carry the full weight of Congress.
- wobblyasp 5y ago
  IANAL, but yes that's right as far as I understand it. But a request can very quickly become a demand
  - cobrabyte 5y ago
    I have no dog in this particular fight, but if I were at the helm of any of these companies, I wouldn't willingly hand over my users' data without being lawfully required to do so. To do so would be an invasion of my users' privacy. If it's so essential to the government to invade the private conversations of a company's user base, they should stand by their claims by using subpoena powers. I believe they're hoping to avoid legal recourse by "requesting" rather than requiring.
- azernik 5y ago
  Generally the requests are a polite prelude to a subpoena. The subpoena process is a bit of a pain, so they'll skip it if the recipient is okay handing stuff over, but its presence is always felt.
- ghastmaster 5y ago
  Yes. It can result in a contempt charge, if the recipient does not comply. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress
  - cobrabyte 5y ago
    Reading the first couple of sentences, it looks like Contempt of Congress applies only if you ignore a subpoena. It doesn't appear that Congress used subpoena powers (I may be wrong in this assumption) for this request, and Gab's reply to their request for information was optional. Of course, Gab understands that to ignore the request altogether would have left them open to further harassment by the government, and they provided as little information as possible, but still complied with the request.
atok1 5y ago
Why would anyone want to voluntarily hand over data? It can only lead to consequences to their user base, thus not being in their interest. The gov puts out way too many requests for info as it stands.
- wobblyasp 5y ago
  Not saying they should/shouldn't; just that coming at it from this angel is only going to cause more problems. I'm personally not a fan of Gab, and their claims on freedom of speech have, in my opinion, been way over blown. Plenty of colloquial evidence of people having been banned/blocked for posting, albeit tasteless, anti-Trump or anti-Christian content. However, I do agree that Congress does, in general, requests too much from to many. There's a middle ground, somewhere, where Gab could have offered to cooperate, while still maintaining their stance.
rscoots 5y ago
Lol your comment reminds me of this statement by Chuck Schumer. Weird thing for us to be proud of, as noxious as Gab is. https://youtu.be/6OYyXv2l4-I https://youtu.be/6OYyXv2l4-I
throwthere 5y ago
Don’t you think that’s what they want? A political battle making national news where they can drum up support for their platform? They’re playing a different game then established players like Facebook.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

mountainb 5y ago

So 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 ago
The government has a monopoly on force. There are plenty of reasons to be afraid of it.
- sparrish 5y ago
  No, 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 ago
    The 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 ago
      No 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.

cobrabyte 5y ago

I may be out of the loop a bit, but do these "requests" have any real power? It seems like subpoenas would have been the appropriate legal instrument if they needed to carry the full weight of Congress.

wobblyasp 5y ago
IANAL, but yes that's right as far as I understand it. But a request can very quickly become a demand
- cobrabyte 5y ago
  I have no dog in this particular fight, but if I were at the helm of any of these companies, I wouldn't willingly hand over my users' data without being lawfully required to do so. To do so would be an invasion of my users' privacy. If it's so essential to the government to invade the private conversations of a company's user base, they should stand by their claims by using subpoena powers. I believe they're hoping to avoid legal recourse by "requesting" rather than requiring.
azernik 5y ago
Generally the requests are a polite prelude to a subpoena. The subpoena process is a bit of a pain, so they'll skip it if the recipient is okay handing stuff over, but its presence is always felt.
ghastmaster 5y ago
Yes. It can result in a contempt charge, if the recipient does not comply. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress
- cobrabyte 5y ago
  Reading the first couple of sentences, it looks like Contempt of Congress applies only if you ignore a subpoena. It doesn't appear that Congress used subpoena powers (I may be wrong in this assumption) for this request, and Gab's reply to their request for information was optional. Of course, Gab understands that to ignore the request altogether would have left them open to further harassment by the government, and they provided as little information as possible, but still complied with the request.

atok1 5y ago

Why would anyone want to voluntarily hand over data? It can only lead to consequences to their user base, thus not being in their interest. The gov puts out way too many requests for info as it stands.

wobblyasp 5y ago
Not saying they should/shouldn't; just that coming at it from this angel is only going to cause more problems. I'm personally not a fan of Gab, and their claims on freedom of speech have, in my opinion, been way over blown. Plenty of colloquial evidence of people having been banned/blocked for posting, albeit tasteless, anti-Trump or anti-Christian content. However, I do agree that Congress does, in general, requests too much from to many. There's a middle ground, somewhere, where Gab could have offered to cooperate, while still maintaining their stance.

rscoots 5y ago

Lol your comment reminds me of this statement by Chuck Schumer. Weird thing for us to be proud of, as noxious as Gab is. https://youtu.be/6OYyXv2l4-I https://youtu.be/6OYyXv2l4-I

throwthere 5y ago

Don’t you think that’s what they want? A political battle making national news where they can drum up support for their platform? They’re playing a different game then established players like Facebook.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]