4 ms·

My point was: there exists a platform that is banned by app stores, cloud services and financial processors. It’s demonstrates not just a theoretical possibilit

My point was: there exists a platform that is banned by app stores, cloud services and financial processors. It’s demonstrates not just a theoretical possibility to survive without them, it survives and functions… and is shunned by the people.

nwiswell 4y ago
So it does not censor the sort of thing that reasonable people do want censored on their social media, and does censor the sort of things that people don't want arbitrarily censored. And in exchange for that, you get to deal with inconvenient access. Yeah, of course it's shunned. Based on what you've said, it doesn't represent any kind of practical improvement over the status quo, so the question of whether or not it's associated with / frequented by distasteful people doesn't even factor into this.
discardedrefuse 4y ago
Classic martyr. You're making it sound like Gab is "shunned by the people" because it's uncensored. In reality it's an issue of content. The people just aren't interested in Gab's content. And that will never change because that shit content also happens to be the reason for Gab's existence. Gab created a shit platform for shit people to post shit content and you're blaming everyone else for its failure. In contrast, Reddit was plenty successful long before they started censoring to appease their corpo-overlords. The difference was that A) shit wasn't the only content available and B) average users weren't automatically subjected to the shit content that they were hosting.
- MikePlacid 4y ago
  > Gab created a shit platform for shit people to post shit content I absolutely loved your hate speech. I do not agree with it but will always defend your right to say it. Let me clarify just a couple of points. 1. Here’s what Gab’s founder tells about the purpose of Gab: Gab’s mission is to be the home of free speech online. It seeks to export American values and freedom to the maximum extent permitted by American law to Internet users around the world. Gab concurs with the Committee’s view that these values protect offensive and unpopular speech, but not illegal speech, such as threats. Unlawful speech is not and has never been allowed on Gab. 2. I am pointing at Gab as an example of definite *success*. It survives and functions despite being no-platformed and banned by 25+ service providers over the years including both App Stores, multiple payment processors, and hosting providers. The example of *failure* in this context is another free-speech platform… forgot it’s name - it was deplatformed in 2020 and stopped functioning for a long period of time. Very unprofessional. (Edit: Parler of cause. Parler was deplatformed by Amazon and both app stores - and immediately went down. That’s what failure looks like) So, you may think that they are shit people. Ok. But you’ve failed to silence them, despite trying heavily. Doesn’t it provoke your professional interest - how they managed to do it?
  - discardedrefuse 4y ago
    Maybe I was a little too flowery with my speech. But I think my points are still valid. Regardless of what Gab's founder writes, Gab (like Parler) was created in direct response to the deplatforming of white supremacists. That kind of content is just not going to attract mainstream attention. In that sense, that makes Gab a failed platform. But you're right; the fact that it is up and running, in spite of getting blacklisted by big corpo, could be seen as a sort of success. I'm all for technology that can't be taken down by overzealous governments. You kinda got me wrong too. I'm not for silencing anyone. I'm just explaining why no one is using Gab. Again, its not because its uncensored (as you bemoan). It's because Gab doesn't offer anything people want. Time and time again its been proven that users simply don't care about privacy / censorship / decentralization / some-other-high-minded-ideal. They care about convenience and content.
    - brigandish 4y ago
      > Gab (like Parler) was created in direct response to the deplatforming of white supremacists. According to this Buzzfeed article from around the time Parler started, that is not the case. [1] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/alexkantrowitz/new-social-network-gab-growing-fast-free-speech https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/alexkantrowitz/new-soci...
      - discardedrefuse 4y ago
        Are you being sarcastic? Because that Buzzfeed article very much supports my statements about Gab and doesn't mention Parler at all. To quote sabergirl278 (the only commenter on that page), "So basically, its a platform for hate speech?"
        brigandish 4y ago
        > Are you being sarcastic? No. > Because that Buzzfeed article very much supports my statements about Gab Please expand on that. > and doesn't mention Parler at all I know, and it doesn't need to for it to be a valid response, so you might check my comment again in light of that. > To quote sabergirl278 (the only commenter on that page) Why is the quote from a commenter relevant? It's not, not in any universe where logic holds sway.

nwiswell 4y ago

So it does not censor the sort of thing that reasonable people do want censored on their social media, and does censor the sort of things that people don't want arbitrarily censored. And in exchange for that, you get to deal with inconvenient access. Yeah, of course it's shunned. Based on what you've said, it doesn't represent any kind of practical improvement over the status quo, so the question of whether or not it's associated with / frequented by distasteful people doesn't even factor into this.

discardedrefuse 4y ago

Classic martyr. You're making it sound like Gab is "shunned by the people" because it's uncensored. In reality it's an issue of content. The people just aren't interested in Gab's content. And that will never change because that shit content also happens to be the reason for Gab's existence. Gab created a shit platform for shit people to post shit content and you're blaming everyone else for its failure. In contrast, Reddit was plenty successful long before they started censoring to appease their corpo-overlords. The difference was that A) shit wasn't the only content available and B) average users weren't automatically subjected to the shit content that they were hosting.

MikePlacid 4y ago
> Gab created a shit platform for shit people to post shit content I absolutely loved your hate speech. I do not agree with it but will always defend your right to say it. Let me clarify just a couple of points. 1. Here’s what Gab’s founder tells about the purpose of Gab: Gab’s mission is to be the home of free speech online. It seeks to export American values and freedom to the maximum extent permitted by American law to Internet users around the world. Gab concurs with the Committee’s view that these values protect offensive and unpopular speech, but not illegal speech, such as threats. Unlawful speech is not and has never been allowed on Gab. 2. I am pointing at Gab as an example of definite *success*. It survives and functions despite being no-platformed and banned by 25+ service providers over the years including both App Stores, multiple payment processors, and hosting providers. The example of *failure* in this context is another free-speech platform… forgot it’s name - it was deplatformed in 2020 and stopped functioning for a long period of time. Very unprofessional. (Edit: Parler of cause. Parler was deplatformed by Amazon and both app stores - and immediately went down. That’s what failure looks like) So, you may think that they are shit people. Ok. But you’ve failed to silence them, despite trying heavily. Doesn’t it provoke your professional interest - how they managed to do it?
- discardedrefuse 4y ago
  Maybe I was a little too flowery with my speech. But I think my points are still valid. Regardless of what Gab's founder writes, Gab (like Parler) was created in direct response to the deplatforming of white supremacists. That kind of content is just not going to attract mainstream attention. In that sense, that makes Gab a failed platform. But you're right; the fact that it is up and running, in spite of getting blacklisted by big corpo, could be seen as a sort of success. I'm all for technology that can't be taken down by overzealous governments. You kinda got me wrong too. I'm not for silencing anyone. I'm just explaining why no one is using Gab. Again, its not because its uncensored (as you bemoan). It's because Gab doesn't offer anything people want. Time and time again its been proven that users simply don't care about privacy / censorship / decentralization / some-other-high-minded-ideal. They care about convenience and content.
  - brigandish 4y ago
    > Gab (like Parler) was created in direct response to the deplatforming of white supremacists. According to this Buzzfeed article from around the time Parler started, that is not the case. [1] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/alexkantrowitz/new-social-network-gab-growing-fast-free-speech https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/alexkantrowitz/new-soci...
    - discardedrefuse 4y ago
      Are you being sarcastic? Because that Buzzfeed article very much supports my statements about Gab and doesn't mention Parler at all. To quote sabergirl278 (the only commenter on that page), "So basically, its a platform for hate speech?"
      - brigandish 4y ago
        > Are you being sarcastic? No. > Because that Buzzfeed article very much supports my statements about Gab Please expand on that. > and doesn't mention Parler at all I know, and it doesn't need to for it to be a valid response, so you might check my comment again in light of that. > To quote sabergirl278 (the only commenter on that page) Why is the quote from a commenter relevant? It's not, not in any universe where logic holds sway.