# GAB, a social network that promote free speech a bit too much



## Noctosphere (Oct 30, 2018)

So yea, I've heard a lot about Gab lately with the pittsburg shooting
Apparently, Gab promotes the free speech right to a new level, where hating is authorized
Gab apparently allows peoples to do hate speeching, death threat and appologies of sexual harrassment
you know... such stuff...
This website should be taken down as, even if we have free speech, it must be moderated like everything else
Hey, the guy from the Pittsburg synagogue shooting had published he was going to do it before he did
If someone reported it to cops, maybe it could have been avoided
But now, people on Gab call him a hero

Seriously, cops should take down that social network who totally lack of moderation


----------



## JiveTheTurkey (Oct 30, 2018)

Noctosphere said:


> If someone reported it to cops, maybe it could have been avoided


This should have been step 1.


Noctosphere said:


> But now, people on Gab call him a hero


They should have been moderating/reporting this to police this before they got called out for what happened. I only saw their site post and I think they're overall happy with being recognized by many across the nation. People died and I just keep reading "Thank god I found a free speech version of Twitter"- like what!?... smh


Noctosphere said:


> Gab apparently allows peoples to do hate speeching





Noctosphere said:


> This website should be taken down


Sorry but I disagree with this. Twitter, Facebook and even YouTube have users by the thousands that get away with making these threats and hate remarks against people of race(predominanty against whites), christian religion, and political party and they have yet to be moderated by the people shutting down anti-sjw or NPC accounts. The Parkland shooter made death threats and was even tipped off to the FBI but nobody took any action before disaster struck. Gab is not the first or only to (allegedly) allow hate speech or threats.


----------



## Noctosphere (Oct 30, 2018)

JiveTheTurkey said:


> This should have been step 1.
> 
> They should have been moderating/reporting this to police this before they got called out for what happened. I only saw their site post and I think they're overall happy with being recognized by many across the nation. People died and I just keep reading "Thank god I found a free speech version of Twitter"- like what!?... smh
> 
> ...


well, facebook, twitter and youtube moderate those comment as much as they can
GAB, on the other hand, ALLOWS hate speech


----------



## CallmeBerto (Nov 1, 2018)

As long as it isn't illegal what is the problem? Just cause YOU don't like it doesn't mean anything.


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 1, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> As long as it isn't illegal what is the problem? Just cause YOU don't like it doesn't mean anything.


Directed death threats would actually be illegal. That aside, just avoid the site and move on. You don't have to veiw the content on that site. As well it's sadly better to allow these people to have their space.


----------



## chrisrlink (Nov 1, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> As long as it isn't illegal what is the problem? Just cause YOU don't like it doesn't mean anything.



DIDN'T YOU JUST READ THOSE ASSHOLES ON GAB PRAISED THE GUY FOR KILLING PEOPLE yes it's illegal cause one of them committed murder


----------



## CallmeBerto (Nov 1, 2018)

chrisrlink said:


> DIDN'T YOU JUST READ THOSE ASSHOLES ON GAB PRAISED THE GUY FOR KILLING PEOPLE yes it's illegal cause one of them committed murder




Praise a killer = is a killer. Listen I don't agree but that isn't a crime. Now making the death threats like LV said is.


----------



## chrisrlink (Nov 1, 2018)

with no moderation this needs to be shut down before another mass murder occurs

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I'm surprised Anonymous isn't doing anything yet bout it


----------



## DBlaze (Nov 1, 2018)

So what some people are saying is, if 1 person does something horrible, an entire platform should be shut down?
Rotten apples are present in all communities, you may as well shutdown all social media platforms and forums that way.

A site with no moderation is an interesting idea, albeit within laws.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Nov 1, 2018)

The site has some moderation guys. It recently banned lewd lolis because it is a grey area in most places and illegal in many others - https://www.oneangrygamer.net/2018/10/gab-bans-lolicon-calling-it-demonic-garbage/70684/


----------



## gamesquest1 (Nov 1, 2018)

so I guess it would be better these nut jobs have nowhere to expose themselves and their opinions for the authorities to monitor and intervene, I guess if a platform can be shut down based on the actions of users we can kiss goodbye to youtube, facebook, twitter, even gbatemp has had their own users who have been found to have done terrible illegal shit, you could even argue facebook  has been even worse by having people livestream murders/abuse etc, once you open the door to complete censorship don't be too surprised when the door slams shut behind you

personally I would like people to be holding the torch to the feet of those who were free to investigate and monitor people on gab but were too busy waiting for the attack to happen, if history has taught humanity anything its that supressing ideologies you don't like doesn't work, its your imperative to go and argue against and hope to sway opinion. sending them all to scurry away and hide and fester only leads to these kinds of events

think of it like something you can relate to, if they ban and remove rom sharing sites, what would you do....suddenly see the error of your way? or maybe just go to the next place, your mind isn't changed by the removal of a rom site, its a minor inconvenience to most people, its a game of whack a mole until you can resolve the core issue, no amount of banning/blocking will change peoples desires to do something unless you want to advocate total and unfettered authoritarian control over the internet


----------



## kuwanger (Nov 1, 2018)

DBlaze said:


> A site with no moderation is an interesting idea, albeit within laws.



That's a contradiction.  Laws are a moderation.  Self-censorship to avoid the law is a moderation.  If you want "no moderation...albeit within laws", you have to change the laws to allow anything.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Nov 1, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> Praise a killer = is a killer. Listen I don't agree but that isn't a crime. Now making the death threats like LV said is.


I may sound extreme in saying this, but I don't think death threats should be a crime. Evidence of a crime and just cause to carry out an investigation, yes; but the actual speech shouldn't be illegal.


----------



## Chary (Nov 1, 2018)

Noctosphere said:


> where hating is authorized
> Gab apparently allows peoples to do hate speeching, death threat and appologies of sexual harrassment
> you know... such stuff...





> *GAB*
> Gab.com’s policy on terrorism and violence have always been very clear: we a have zero tolerance for it. *Gab unequivocally disavows and condemns all acts of terrorism and violence.* This has always been our policy. We are saddened and disgusted by the news of violence in Pittsburgh and are keeping the families and friends of all victims in our thoughts and prayers.
> 
> Gab took swift and proactive action to contact law enforcement immediately. We first backed up all user data from the account and then proceeded to suspend the account. We then contacted the FBI and made them aware of this account and the user data in our possession. We are ready and willing to work with law enforcement to see to it that justice is served.



They then go on to talk about how Facebook didn't do much of anything about the Facebook Live attack of that one kid, or other threats of bombing attacks. So if you want GAB held to a standard, then you need to hold Facebook to it too, so by that extension do you want all social media to be killed off because of this?


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 1, 2018)

Chary said:


> They then go on to talk about how Facebook didn't do much of anything about the Facebook Live attack of that one kid, or other threats of bombing attacks. So if you want GAB held to a standard, then you need to hold Facebook to it too, so by that extension do you want all social media to be killed off because of this?



That wold just be pandering to censorship BS, and as we all know, censorship doesn't solve problems.


----------



## kuwanger (Nov 1, 2018)

Subtle Demise said:


> I may sound extreme in saying this, but I don't think death threats should be a crime.



In principle that sounds great, but in practice there are people with a lot of money (or a lot of free time) willing to harass people constantly.  This includes making constant death threats, stalking, etc.  At worst US history includes companies hiring personal armies and people "disappearing", usually with little to no consequences because even if law enforcement isn't being bought off a lot of time there's a lack of hard evidence.

Having said all that, a site shouldn't be required to self-moderate if it doesn't want to.  It should be required to take down content based upon lawful orders and challenge those orders in court if they think they're unlawful.  That's obviously a lot of grey area, as many countries have different concepts of what lawful or unlawful is.  It seems the most reasonable position to take to abate any legitimate complaints by law enforcement to conspiracy of unlawful things.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 1, 2018)

Subtle Demise said:


> I may sound extreme in saying this, but I don't think death threats should be a crime. Evidence of a crime and just cause to carry out an investigation, yes; but the actual speech shouldn't be illegal.



If death threats should be legal, then I should have every right to verbally abuse the people who make them right back with all manner of slander and slurs. Sound fair? If they have the right to say threats, I have a right to fight fire with fire.  Anyone who makes legit threats deserves to be punched in the kidneys.


----------



## Glyptofane (Nov 1, 2018)

I don't think the those who can't be named even really care that much or at all about the death threats. It's more about removing access to dissenting wrongthink. Daily Stormer was deplatformed despite constantly disavowing violence. To me, the bigger takeaway is that you never really own your web domains.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Nov 1, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> If death threats should be legal, then I should have every right to verbally abuse the people who make them right back with all manner of slander and slurs. Sound fair? If they have the right to say threats, I have a right to fight fire with fire.  Anyone who makes legit threats deserves to be punched in the kidneys.



Using physical force because someone said something you don't like? Holy shit dude


----------



## DBlaze (Nov 1, 2018)

kuwanger said:


> That's a contradiction.  Laws are a moderation.  Self-censorship to avoid the law is a moderation.  If you want "no moderation...albeit within laws", you have to change the laws to allow anything.


Yes well, fine, no extra moderation outside of what is legal and what not.
For example some sites you're allowed to post pornographic content and others you're not, but that's because of the rules of the platform, not because of the law.


----------



## tbb043 (Nov 1, 2018)

There's too much free speech goin on!


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 1, 2018)

Them having to change registrar was a very big one for me.

You kind of expect hosting companies to wimp out from time to time (though it reflects poorly on them in this case) but registrar, payment providers and more bailing for no justifiable (or provided) reason... yeah.

Quite often I see the comment "if you don't like it then go make your own", and it seems they did here. However it seems they are also going to have to make their own credit card provider, registrar, hosting and more. That or we will finally have to do the distributed thing or maybe a really nice web portal to TOR or something for those that don't need full TOR protections but do need simple access.

But anyway those saying this was too much do you have an example of a site with good rules? Obviously Twitter, Facebook, Reddit and each of their attendant properties are out so what do we have now? Or if such a thing does not exist care to share at least an overview of the sorts of rules you would expect (though I suppose it would not be a free speech forum).


----------



## Subtle Demise (Nov 2, 2018)

kuwanger said:


> In principle that sounds great, but in practice there are people with a lot of money (or a lot of free time) willing to harass people constantly.  This includes making constant death threats, stalking, etc.  At worst US history includes companies hiring personal armies and people "disappearing", usually with little to no consequences because even if law enforcement isn't being bought off a lot of time there's a lack of hard evidence.
> 
> Having said all that, a site shouldn't be required to self-moderate if it doesn't want to.  It should be required to take down content based upon lawful orders and challenge those orders in court if they think they're unlawful.  That's obviously a lot of grey area, as many countries have different concepts of what lawful or unlawful is.  It seems the most reasonable position to take to abate any legitimate complaints by law enforcement to conspiracy of unlawful things.


Well stalking, harassment, kidnapping, and murder are all actions that transcend simple speech. I feel there is a big difference between saying "I'll kill you for that!" And actually intending to carry that out.


the_randomizer said:


> If death threats should be legal, then I should have every right to verbally abuse the people who make them right back with all manner of slander and slurs. Sound fair? If they have the right to say threats, I have a right to fight fire with fire.  Anyone who makes legit threats deserves to be punched in the kidneys.


Except for the physical violence part, it sounds fair to me. My opinion is that once you ban one form of speech, it opens the door take away more and more, until something like making fun of the president gets you arrested. Making fun if the president is something we as Americans take for granted, where it would get you killed in somewhere like North Korea. One of the major reasons free speech is important to me.


----------



## kuwanger (Nov 2, 2018)

Subtle Demise said:


> I feel there is a big difference between saying "I'll kill you for that!" And actually intending to carry that out.



Well, AFAIK, "death threats" are only considered illegal if they're considered credible; ie, there has to be some evidence they intend to carry them out (or at least something similar).  Otherwise, like you suggested earlier, it just tends to get an investigation by police/the FBI and that's usually enough to stop most people from continuing the practice.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 2, 2018)

Subtle Demise said:


> Well stalking, harassment, kidnapping, and murder are all actions that transcend simple speech. I feel there is a big difference between saying "I'll kill you for that!" And actually intending to carry that out.
> 
> Except for the physical violence part, it sounds fair to me. My opinion is that once you ban one form of speech, it opens the door take away more and more, until something like making fun of the president gets you arrested. Making fun if the president is something we as Americans take for granted, where it would get you killed in somewhere like North Korea. One of the major reasons free speech is important to me.



Also proving why censorship is the pusillanimous route for many governments to take.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Nov 2, 2018)

Easier to control the average citizen. Just look at how well North Korea has done it.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 3, 2018)

Gab was shut down, no?  Some of the investors were perfectly fine with white supremacy because they themselves were white supremacists, but ultimately no site is going to want to be associated with that from the top down.  Free speech doesn't need to include inciting or encouraging terrorist acts, and that shit is inevitable in areas of the net with a heavy alt-right presence.  Even Reddit's The_Donald still makes a lot of posts with violent implications.


----------



## dAVID_ (Nov 3, 2018)

4chan has been doing this since 2003.


----------



## Attacker3 (Nov 9, 2018)

Get off our platform, go make your own!
_Owners of GAB makes their own platform_
NooOooOOoooo stop it!!!!


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Nov 27, 2018)

Gab tried to be a "Twitter 2.0" but it just was what it was, meh.

Twitter is a cesspool and the reason I ditched it.

Btw, god damn with the full screen ads. Makes it impossible to type anything properly.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 27, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> Get off our platform, go make your own!
> _Owners of GAB makes their own platform_
> NooOooOOoooo stop it!!!!


I don't mind the idea of isolating all the racism, bigotry, and ignorance to a single social media platform.  Doesn't mean advertisers and hosts are going to be equally pleased about it, though.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Nov 28, 2018)

dAVID_ said:


> 4chan has been doing this since 2003.


This gave me tgt idea to look up "4chan racism", and this came up:







lol wtf. Speechless.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> I don't mind the idea of isolating all the racism, bigotry, and ignorance to a single social media platform.  Doesn't mean advertisers and hosts are going to be equally pleased about it, though.


Twitter has a lot going from all sides but they don't really make it to the news so no one cares.

Stan Lee was called a racist. The word has definitely lost its meaning.


----------



## bodefuceta (Nov 28, 2018)

BS. Patrick little was banned on Gab. It's nowhere near to free speech. 
While we're at it, maybe we should ban talking person to person, I mean, they could be talking about anything!


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Nov 28, 2018)

Xzi said:


> alt-right


Liberals, Alt-Righters, Socialists, Conservatives, Communists, Democrats, etc.. I tend to get a chuckle out of it but none should be taken seriously. Being loyal to a political party is one of the most idiotic things anyone can do cause it's all about $$$.

Yeah, they make it seem like they care about X, Y and Z audiences but.. nah.

This also brings me to the point of how utterly retarded the whole "white vs black" clashes are. People have been numbed down to colors. Colors. And fight for it.

"White" doesn't necessarily refer to a single race just as "black" doesn't either. Dark-skinned Indians exist but are they the "blacks" people think of? Likely not, but they do have black skin color.

What's the skin color of Albinos? White. But are they the "whites" people are thinking about? Probably not.

The "whites" most people generally talk about are Europeans and the "blacks" are Africans. That's it, pretty simple.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 28, 2018)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> Stan Lee was called a racist. The word has definitely lost its meaning.


No it definitely has not.  I'm sure some people would like to make racism so mainstream that the term loses all meaning, but it's unlikely to happen.



Saiyan Lusitano said:


> Liberals, Alt-Righters, Socialists, Conservatives, Communists, Democrats, etc.. I tend to get a chuckle out of it but none should be taken seriously. Being loyal to a political party is one of the most idiotic things anyone can do cause it's all about $$$.


...Alt-right isn't a political party.  It's a large tent for ideologies filled with hatred and extremist rhetoric.  Closer to a cult or religious extremist group, especially when you examine the blind faith and worship in figures like Q.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Nov 28, 2018)

Xzi said:


> ...Alt-right isn't a political party. It's a large tent for ideologies filled with hatred and extremist rhetoric. Closer to a cult or religious extremist group, especially when you examine the blind faith and worship in figures like Q.


Well, it's a sub-group of the right politics, if anything. Those who align with the alt-right probably don't even know what it really is about, but have made an idea of what it is.

I digress, all parties suck either way.


----------

