7 ms·

Uhm. I can only guess why we Americans are not using Gab. But I thought I’ve made my guess pretty explicit: yes, I can clearly see and with great uneasiness tha

Uhm. I can only guess why we Americans are not using Gab. But I thought I’ve made my guess pretty explicit: yes, I can clearly see and with great uneasiness that Americans prefer censorship. May be I was wrong - what is your thought, what Gab should do with these suprematists? And my guess is based on some observations. I named one - GOP branch deleting their account. Here’s the second observation, if you wish. Even more bothering to me. Not so long a go there was a mass protest at SF medical center. About a thousand of hospital workers were demanding that Zuckerberg’s name (paid by him at $25 mln) was removed from the plates. Reason - he is not doing enough to censor Facebook posts. I was born and grown up and have a nice “living experience” in a totalitarian country. This popular demand for more censorship looks to me like people asking authorities to hang them - and bringing their own ropes and soap to the execution site. Not a nice picture to watch.

bglazer 4y ago
The key difference between being banned from Facebook and being hanged by the government is that in one case you die and in the other case you are mildly inconvenienced. Like you said, you can always go to Gab.
- thrown_22 4y ago
  First they came for the facebook posts, I did not speak out because I didn't use facebook. Then they came for the internet registrars, I did not speak out because I didn't have a website. Then they came for the payment processors, I did not speak out because I didn't have an online business. When they came for my bank account there was no where left to speak.
  - jonathankoren 4y ago
    Just to be clear. The “They” coming for the Facebook posts is Mark Zuckerberg, owner of Facebook. Give me your car. I want to key some stuff into the side of it. If you don’t you’re censoring me.
    - MikePlacid 4y ago
      Facebook operates in California. It’s users are - by Facebook provided user agreement- bound in their relationship with Facebook by California laws. Now, the constitution of California provides positive right of speech to it’s citizens: Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. See this dot here? no exception for Zuckerbergs. Or your car. Then, there is courts’ interpretation of this right. It was as following (by memory): if you created a public forum, then you can’t remove people from it for their speech contents only . That’s why California malls can’t remove beggars soliciting money (you car is ok, it’s not a public forum). Now, as in now, California becomes a one-party state (feels like home, sometimes). The same Supreme Court (but with nowadays judges) decides: is Facebook a public forum? You can guess the answer.
      - jonathankoren 4y ago
        So you agree. I can carve a message into the side your car, and there’s nothing you can do about it. Nice. I’ve got my knife. Let’s meet up! Afterwards, we’ll swing by the television station and make them broadcast us live, free of charge or control, a six hour lecture about our novel interpretation constitutional law.
    - thrown_22 4y ago
      How do you fit 4 billion people in your car?
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - jonathankoren 4y ago
        I don’t. I censor them.
        thrown_22 4y ago
        That must be a very big car to have enough space for 4 billion people to write whatever they want on it.
bavent 4y ago
Gab should do whatever they are legally required to do under the law and no more. If they want to provide a safe space for white supremacists/conspiracy theorists/whatever, I don’t care. I won’t use it. Me not using their service is not me condoning “censorship” or whatever you think is happening, it’s just me not wanting to use a shitty platform full of shitty people. I don’t like the fact that Visa won’t let sex workers use them as a payment processor either. Just because I am against one thing does not mean I am automatically for another thing.
- MikePlacid 4y ago
  > If they want to provide a safe space for white supremacists/conspiracy theorists/whatever, I don’t care. I won’t use it. So, you will use only a platform that does not provide a safe space for white supremacists/conspiracy theorists/whatever ?
  - bavent 4y ago
    Well apparently they won’t let me use it. They censored me for not having views that aligned with theirs. But also yes, I’m not a fan of white supremacists and I won’t voluntarily use a platform that caters to them. Just like I wouldn’t eat at a “Hitler was great”-themed cafe.
    - brigandish 4y ago
      Isn't the point that MikePlacid is making that if a platform does not engage in censorship then it will: a) have some users who've been censored elsewhere b) be accused of catering to them, as you have done c) meanwhile, the majority continues to use censored platforms Whereas if you and the majority used an uncensored-yet-legal platform: 1) White supremacists would be a tiny minority 2) Everyone could speak freely 3) That would not be catering to white supremacists Or would it? Based on what you've written above it seems you might claim it would be catering to them by not censoring them. You've created a circular argument and a vicious cycle on top of it. That does support censorship and it shows that the majority does prefer censorship. Freedom of speech will necessarily entail having speech the majority don't like being around. That's the price of it but it's better than the alternatives.
NoGravitas 4y ago
It's literally not censorship to voluntarily refuse to associate with white supremacists (or to simply have no interest in doing so). I'd assume this is the reason we Americans are not using Gab.
- brigandish 4y ago
  That would hold more water if people were using services that are not heavily censored, or not censored at all. The white supremacists (apparently, I've not used Gab) all used to be on Twitter - were Twitter users associating with them back then? Did everyone stop using Twitter?

bglazer 4y ago

The key difference between being banned from Facebook and being hanged by the government is that in one case you die and in the other case you are mildly inconvenienced. Like you said, you can always go to Gab.

thrown_22 4y ago
First they came for the facebook posts, I did not speak out because I didn't use facebook. Then they came for the internet registrars, I did not speak out because I didn't have a website. Then they came for the payment processors, I did not speak out because I didn't have an online business. When they came for my bank account there was no where left to speak.
- jonathankoren 4y ago
  Just to be clear. The “They” coming for the Facebook posts is Mark Zuckerberg, owner of Facebook. Give me your car. I want to key some stuff into the side of it. If you don’t you’re censoring me.
  - MikePlacid 4y ago
    Facebook operates in California. It’s users are - by Facebook provided user agreement- bound in their relationship with Facebook by California laws. Now, the constitution of California provides positive right of speech to it’s citizens: Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. See this dot here? no exception for Zuckerbergs. Or your car. Then, there is courts’ interpretation of this right. It was as following (by memory): if you created a public forum, then you can’t remove people from it for their speech contents only . That’s why California malls can’t remove beggars soliciting money (you car is ok, it’s not a public forum). Now, as in now, California becomes a one-party state (feels like home, sometimes). The same Supreme Court (but with nowadays judges) decides: is Facebook a public forum? You can guess the answer.
    - jonathankoren 4y ago
      So you agree. I can carve a message into the side your car, and there’s nothing you can do about it. Nice. I’ve got my knife. Let’s meet up! Afterwards, we’ll swing by the television station and make them broadcast us live, free of charge or control, a six hour lecture about our novel interpretation constitutional law.
  - thrown_22 4y ago
    How do you fit 4 billion people in your car?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - jonathankoren 4y ago
      I don’t. I censor them.
      - thrown_22 4y ago
        That must be a very big car to have enough space for 4 billion people to write whatever they want on it.

bavent 4y ago

Gab should do whatever they are legally required to do under the law and no more. If they want to provide a safe space for white supremacists/conspiracy theorists/whatever, I don’t care. I won’t use it. Me not using their service is not me condoning “censorship” or whatever you think is happening, it’s just me not wanting to use a shitty platform full of shitty people. I don’t like the fact that Visa won’t let sex workers use them as a payment processor either. Just because I am against one thing does not mean I am automatically for another thing.

MikePlacid 4y ago
> If they want to provide a safe space for white supremacists/conspiracy theorists/whatever, I don’t care. I won’t use it. So, you will use only a platform that does not provide a safe space for white supremacists/conspiracy theorists/whatever ?
- bavent 4y ago
  Well apparently they won’t let me use it. They censored me for not having views that aligned with theirs. But also yes, I’m not a fan of white supremacists and I won’t voluntarily use a platform that caters to them. Just like I wouldn’t eat at a “Hitler was great”-themed cafe.
  - brigandish 4y ago
    Isn't the point that MikePlacid is making that if a platform does not engage in censorship then it will: a) have some users who've been censored elsewhere b) be accused of catering to them, as you have done c) meanwhile, the majority continues to use censored platforms Whereas if you and the majority used an uncensored-yet-legal platform: 1) White supremacists would be a tiny minority 2) Everyone could speak freely 3) That would not be catering to white supremacists Or would it? Based on what you've written above it seems you might claim it would be catering to them by not censoring them. You've created a circular argument and a vicious cycle on top of it. That does support censorship and it shows that the majority does prefer censorship. Freedom of speech will necessarily entail having speech the majority don't like being around. That's the price of it but it's better than the alternatives.

NoGravitas 4y ago

It's literally not censorship to voluntarily refuse to associate with white supremacists (or to simply have no interest in doing so). I'd assume this is the reason we Americans are not using Gab.

brigandish 4y ago
That would hold more water if people were using services that are not heavily censored, or not censored at all. The white supremacists (apparently, I've not used Gab) all used to be on Twitter - were Twitter users associating with them back then? Did everyone stop using Twitter?