What is Gab

[RavenSky]

Gab allows users to say pretty much anything they want. Andrew Torba, the Silicon Valley Trump supporter who created it, said that he wanted to offer an alternative to mainstream social networks which he and others feel are biased against conservatives.

“What makes the entirely left-leaning Big Social monopoly qualified to tell us what is ‘news’ and what is ‘trending’ and to define what ‘harassment’ means?” he told to BuzzFeed News in 2016 explaining his decision to create the company. “It didn’t feel right to me, and I wanted to change it, and give people something that would be fair and just.”

Since then, Gab’s maximalist approach to free speech has made the network the de-facto home to extremist figures who have been booted off mainstream social networks for threats, inciting violence, or promoting racist, sexist, and anti-semitic ideas. While Twitter has banned extremist figures like Milo Yiannopoulos, Richard Spencer, Alex Jones, and Andrew Anglin, Gab continues to welcome them and their followers with open arms. It has been called a “hate-filled echo chamber of racism and conspiracy theories” and “Twitter for racists.”

Do you agree with the following claim:

Opponents of deplatforming argue that censoring extremist speech, actors, and platforms doesn’t stop, and in fact might incite, violence. “Free speech is crucial for the prevention of violence,” the Gab account tweeted Saturday. “If people can not express themselves through words, they will do so through violence. No one wants that. No one.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/10/what-gab/574186/

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, it doesn’t seem like free speech prevents people from expressing themselves through violence, given the violence done by those with unimpeded free speech.

That concept might work if everyone was talking to everyone else. When people are stuck in their own little echo chambers, though, it just enhances the extremeness.

 

[poster]

One problem I see is that when free expression in extreme terms is shared with others and not met with opposition in the form of sound argument causing restraint, the conclusion by the individual often results in an interpretation as permission to hold those views, and, of course, the next natural step would be to act upon them.

These sites need varying opinions expressed without harassment from members.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that both of these people might expect Trump to pardon them.

 

[RavenSky]

One problem I see is that when free expression in extreme terms is shared with others and not met with opposition in the form of sound argument causing restraint, the conclusion by the individual often results in an interpretation as permission to hold those views, and, of course, the next natural step would be to act upon them.

These sites need varying opinions expressed without harassment from members.

While I agree with your points, how do we as a society or Gab as a platform accomplish that goal?

 

[poster]

One problem I see is that when free expression in extreme terms is shared with others and not met with opposition in the form of sound argument causing restraint, the conclusion by the individual often results in an interpretation as permission to hold those views, and, of course, the next natural step would be to act upon them.

These sites need varying opinions expressed without harassment from members.

While I agree with your points, how do we as a society or Gab as a platform accomplish that goal?

For the long term, it begins with reinventing our education system.

For the short term, it means leadership that advocates for tolerance of diversity and freedom of expression within that framework while the education problem gets worked out.

 

[J842P]

Gab allows users to say pretty much anything they want. Andrew Torba, the Silicon Valley Trump supporter who created it, said that he wanted to offer an alternative to mainstream social networks which he and others feel are biased against conservatives.

“What makes the entirely left-leaning Big Social monopoly qualified to tell us what is ‘news’ and what is ‘trending’ and to define what ‘harassment’ means?” he told to BuzzFeed News in 2016 explaining his decision to create the company. “It didn’t feel right to me, and I wanted to change it, and give people something that would be fair and just.”

Since then, Gab’s maximalist approach to free speech has made the network the de-facto home to extremist figures who have been booted off mainstream social networks for threats, inciting violence, or promoting racist, sexist, and anti-semitic ideas. While Twitter has banned extremist figures like Milo Yiannopoulos, Richard Spencer, Alex Jones, and Andrew Anglin, Gab continues to welcome them and their followers with open arms. It has been called a “hate-filled echo chamber of racism and conspiracy theories” and “Twitter for racists.”

Do you agree with the following claim:

Opponents of deplatforming argue that censoring extremist speech, actors, and platforms doesn’t stop, and in fact might incite, violence. “Free speech is crucial for the prevention of violence,” the Gab account tweeted Saturday. “If people can not express themselves through words, they will do so through violence. No one wants that. No one.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/10/what-gab/574186/

I believe freedom of speech is a paramount right. And while yes, particularly with modern social networks, ideological echo-chambers can become dangerous, I do not think giving the government any more power over the policing of speech is warranted nor is it a good idea in the long term.

I do think deplatforming is stupid, although in the case of, say, Twitter, I don't think that is a free speech issue, speaking strictly legally.

And anyway, it's not like ideological echo chambers didn't exist in the past. They were called "small towns", or "social clubs" or whatever.

 

[RavenSky]

I believe freedom of speech is a paramount right. And while yes, particularly with modern social networks, ideological echo-chambers can become dangerous, I do not think giving the government any more power over the policing of speech is warranted nor is it a good idea in the long term.

I do think deplatforming is stupid, although in the case of, say, Twitter, I don't think that is a free speech issue, speaking strictly legally.

And anyway, it's not like ideological echo chambers didn't exist in the past. They were called "small towns", or "social clubs" or whatever.

Do you agree with the following statement:

“Free speech is crucial for the prevention of violence. If people can not express themselves through words, they will do so through violence.”

Or do you think that these "echo chambers" amp up the potential for violence?

Or something else entirely?

 

[J842P]

I believe freedom of speech is a paramount right. And while yes, particularly with modern social networks, ideological echo-chambers can become dangerous, I do not think giving the government any more power over the policing of speech is warranted nor is it a good idea in the long term.

I do think deplatforming is stupid, although in the case of, say, Twitter, I don't think that is a free speech issue, speaking strictly legally.

And anyway, it's not like ideological echo chambers didn't exist in the past. They were called "small towns", or "social clubs" or whatever.

Do you agree with the following statement:

“Free speech is crucial for the prevention of violence. If people can not express themselves through words, they will do so through violence.”

Or do you think that these "echo chambers" amp up the potential for violence?

Or something else entirely?

I'm not sure I buy that free speech is *crucial* for the prevention of violence. I haven't thought about that specifically enough to form an opinion on that which I am willing to affirm. But I do think that countries that have a high tolerance for free speech are generally less violent, from the point of view of repressive government, than societies that aren't.

 

[RavenSky]

I'm not sure I buy that free speech is *crucial* for the prevention of violence. I haven't thought about that specifically enough to form an opinion on that which I am willing to affirm. But I do think that countries that have a high tolerance for free speech are generally less violent, from the point of view of repressive government, than societies that aren't.

I would tend to agree, but I am wondering if there is a tipping point in the other direction as well, and if we are seeing it.

 

[Ford]

There was also a story on NPR:

https://www.npr.org/2018/10/28/661532688/a-look-at-gab-the-free-speech-social-site-where-synagogue-shooting-suspect-poste?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=2056&fbclid=IwAR0y1EPByFwQWLvwUq9W4KL34XsxdhBhBYY3p0zxTZm4lNLjqMSPuDiL4_A

Andrew Torba, who co-founded Gab and is its CEO, has said the network was made to "step up and defend free speech, defend individual liberty, defend the free flow of information that I saw under attack."

I'm gonna call bullshit on that one. Gab, like the larger social media platforms, is first and foremost a business. This guy found a market that was being under-served, and is targeting his business at that market. He's not a champion of free speech. He's using those words as advertising to grow his company among his target demographic. He's fooled people into thinking that their rights have been violated because they were kicked off Twitter or had their Facebook posts removed, when all that happened was those businesses decided such messages were inappropriate for their platforms.

This is not a violation of free speech, and if you turn to violence because your posts were removed from a social media network, the blame does not lie with them.

 

[Angry Floof]

There was also a story on NPR:

https://www.npr.org/2018/10/28/661532688/a-look-at-gab-the-free-speech-social-site-where-synagogue-shooting-suspect-poste?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=2056&fbclid=IwAR0y1EPByFwQWLvwUq9W4KL34XsxdhBhBYY3p0zxTZm4lNLjqMSPuDiL4_A

Andrew Torba, who co-founded Gab and is its CEO, has said the network was made to "step up and defend free speech, defend individual liberty, defend the free flow of information that I saw under attack."

I'm gonna call bullshit on that one. Gab, like the larger social media platforms, is first and foremost a business. This guy found a market that was being under-served, and is targeting his business at that market. He's not a champion of free speech. He's using those words as advertising to grow his company among his target demographic. He's fooled people into thinking that their rights have been violated because they were kicked off Twitter or had their Facebook posts removed, when all that happened was those businesses decided such messages were inappropriate for their platforms.

This is not a violation of free speech, and if you turn to violence because your posts were removed from a social media network, the blame does not lie with them.

It's definitely bullshit. It's just a place for hate to grow. It's a place for right wing nut jobs who don't really understand how language works in human heads. I predict such an environment will devolve into depravity, incite more violence, and we'll see massive abuse of women.

Unless some of the slightly more evolved among them see what's happening and institute something like rules and other fascist controls over speech.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

I'm not sure I buy that free speech is *crucial* for the prevention of violence. I haven't thought about that specifically enough to form an opinion on that which I am willing to affirm. But I do think that countries that have a high tolerance for free speech are generally less violent, from the point of view of repressive government, than societies that aren't.

I would tend to agree, but I am wondering if there is a tipping point in the other direction as well, and if we are seeing it.

One of the problems with the right wingers on the net, is the dramatic growth over the last few years in harassing women on the net with anonymous death threats, rape threats and threats of violence. There is now a tipping point, cutting the extreme right off at the wallet because of this, as it should be. These sort of threats follow the slime pits of the right wingers and other even more extreme male morons like stink off of a moist wet turd. There should be no mercy and no tolerance of this sort of terrorism, and it is terrorism. Not from individuals, and not from anti-social media infested with these sort of scum. Not that only women get threats by outraged, tiny brain right winged extremists on the net. Free speech? You cannot have free speech or a reasoned debate with this sort of fool.

 

[zorq]

I think most of the people this platform is aimed at have such extreme cognitive biases that they block out any facts or opinions that they think have a source outside of their limited spheres of trust or violate the truths that they hold blind-faith-sacred. These people are extremely good at not listening to anything they don't already agree with. As such, free speech for them is already a dead concept.

It means nothing to be able to speak freely when those around you can only hear one thing.

 

[bilby]

If a Nazi exercises his freedom of speech on a media platform read only by other Nazis, and nobody else hears him, did he make a speech?

Back in the days before the Internet, offensive content was hosted on the walls of public lavatories, with occasional mass-censorship events, orchestrated by a janitor with a can of paint.

A medium that nobody consumes isn't a medium at all. These idiots might as well rant to their teddy bears for all the good it does in getting their message 'out there'.

The answer to the OP question is 'exactly'.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6HWNzzR070[/youtube]

 

[Politesse]

I don't see how this new product differs meaningfully from already existing social fora. Radicals know to expect FB censorship of their views these days, they look elsewhere for confirmation bias friendly conversations.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that both of these people might expect Trump to pardon them.

I wouldn't be surprised if he did, at least in the case of pipe bomb guy. Especially if he gets a kiddie-glove op-ed treatment from the conservative press shortly before the determination was to be made.

 

[Patooka]

Freedom of speech means being a slave to consequences. When cunts like Yiannopoulos posted deliberately inflammatory statements, they were first told to shut the fuck up. They kept on going so Twitter then said "pack up all your shit and get out". Can't really blame them for that, they're not the government.
Gab's main selling point is it allows vile arseholes to be vile arseholes whilst being completely immune to repercussions. In my opinion, that's not the same as free speech. That's protectionism.

 

[Politesse]

So... apparently the Pittsburg shooter was a user of this platform, and announced his crime there in advance of committing it. No one reported it til after.

Off to a good start...

 

[ZiprHead]

So... apparently the Pittsburg shooter was a user of this platform, and announced his crime there in advance of committing it. No one reported it til after.

Off to a good start...

Greasy Aryan Bastards?

ETA: Sorry, Poli. That wasn't meant as a response to you. I hit reply with quote accidentally.