2 ms·

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 theoris

by 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.
    - bavent 4y ago
      Did you not see where I said they censored me? I disagreed with a prominent Gab user and posted something that was, by their criteria, “left wing” and I was banned. That is 100% censorship by the criteria he established. How are they not catering to white supremacists etc. if they are banning people for disagreeing? Weren’t they started in order to cater to that demographic as well? I was also banned from Twitter, and I’m not out crying about it as nothing of value was really lost there either.
      - brigandish 4y ago
        Assuming what you say is true (no slight intended, it only means I can't confirm it and haven't seen the exchange), being censored for making a left wing comment does not necessarily imply white supremacists doing it. Left wing comments occasionally get censored on Twitter, too, as you point out. I've no idea if Gab censors or not as I don't use it but that's different to your argument holding water. I also wonder that if you're banned from Twitter and Gab then you're the one with the problem, and this thread might be a clue as to why.
        bavent 4y ago
        If you want to call me an asshole, call me an asshole directly instead of “this thread might be a clue why.” I never said white supremacists were censoring me. I said Gab is full of them and that as a platform, they too censor views that dissent from their majority. So it’s not some free speech wonderland like OP implied. He suggested it as an alternative. I said it’s not really an alternative. The content of what I said to get banned from Twitter or from Gab is irrelevant to my point.
        brigandish 4y ago
        > If you want to call me an asshole, call me an asshole directly instead of “this thread might be a clue why.” I wasn't suggesting anything of the sort, but your belligerence and unwillingness to accept any other point of view is what I was suggesting, along with the bannings you've brought up. > I never said white supremacists were censoring me. Really? > Did you not see where I said they censored me? > How are they not catering to white supremacists If you didn't write it then you suggested it to the point where to now claim anything else undermines your argument, as does the goalpost moving. So, which is it? They're catering to white supremacists or Gab isn't really a free speech paradise. Once you've picked one then perhaps you can form a cogent argument for it. Let me know.

by bavent 4y ago

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.
  - bavent 4y ago
    Did you not see where I said they censored me? I disagreed with a prominent Gab user and posted something that was, by their criteria, “left wing” and I was banned. That is 100% censorship by the criteria he established. How are they not catering to white supremacists etc. if they are banning people for disagreeing? Weren’t they started in order to cater to that demographic as well? I was also banned from Twitter, and I’m not out crying about it as nothing of value was really lost there either.
    - brigandish 4y ago
      Assuming what you say is true (no slight intended, it only means I can't confirm it and haven't seen the exchange), being censored for making a left wing comment does not necessarily imply white supremacists doing it. Left wing comments occasionally get censored on Twitter, too, as you point out. I've no idea if Gab censors or not as I don't use it but that's different to your argument holding water. I also wonder that if you're banned from Twitter and Gab then you're the one with the problem, and this thread might be a clue as to why.
      - bavent 4y ago
        If you want to call me an asshole, call me an asshole directly instead of “this thread might be a clue why.” I never said white supremacists were censoring me. I said Gab is full of them and that as a platform, they too censor views that dissent from their majority. So it’s not some free speech wonderland like OP implied. He suggested it as an alternative. I said it’s not really an alternative. The content of what I said to get banned from Twitter or from Gab is irrelevant to my point.
        brigandish 4y ago
        > If you want to call me an asshole, call me an asshole directly instead of “this thread might be a clue why.” I wasn't suggesting anything of the sort, but your belligerence and unwillingness to accept any other point of view is what I was suggesting, along with the bannings you've brought up. > I never said white supremacists were censoring me. Really? > Did you not see where I said they censored me? > How are they not catering to white supremacists If you didn't write it then you suggested it to the point where to now claim anything else undermines your argument, as does the goalpost moving. So, which is it? They're catering to white supremacists or Gab isn't really a free speech paradise. Once you've picked one then perhaps you can form a cogent argument for it. Let me know.