GAB banned from Coinbase

Jun 20, 2018
1,499
1,581
240
#5
This attempt to censor ideas should worry everyone on both sides of the aisle.
This will only work when it suddenly hits leftists then its a big outrage..before that they cheer because they are idiots, they dont care that payment processors are now shutting down even metal music labels, leftists are at heart useful idiots who put feelings above all which is why the establishment loves them.
 
Last edited:
May 22, 2018
3,069
2,174
240
#9
Like progressives can be trusted to define what is so called hate speech.

Agnostic free speech platforms support the heart of what it means to be American.

Stop being Ameriphobic.
You are full of shit and I could post screenshots of the kind of shit I am talking about to prove it, but I am not 100% sure that mods would allow it given the nature of the posts.


@Bill O'Rights @Keylime Can I post screenshots of offensive statements from other platforms so long as I am not the one actually saying it or endorsing it?


Until they get back to me feel free to type in "GAB Racism" into google and go to images. Its all right there for the world to see.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,230
1,621
470
Brampton, Ontario
#10
Maybe don't allow rampant racism and sexism on your site?
What does "racism" and "sexism" mean anymore?

They're just words that get thrown around regardless of whatever context it's about.

I also agree with @Liberty4all and who gets to define what hate speech is?
 
Last edited:
Nov 11, 2007
9,272
444
1,085
#12
The right to free speech free of government persecution is the hallmark of the American Republic.

Unfortunately many corporations are obtaining such massive monopolies and social power that they threaten the intent behind the first amendment.

The platforms themselves are FREE SPEECH platforms... Meaning yes there will be ideas on there that you may not like or agree with.

The platform itself though defends the American ideal of free speech, the idea that taking a platform away from even the worst of us risks taking the platform away from all of us.

This cheerful glee I see at the banning of free speech platforms is inherently UnAmerican, goes against the heart of Americanism and paints you as an Ameriphobic.
 
Last edited:
May 22, 2018
3,069
2,174
240
#14
The right to free speech free of government persecution is the hallmark of the American Republic.

Unfortunately many corporations are obtaining such massive monopolies and social power that they threaten the intent behind the first amendment.

The platforms themselves are FREE SPEECH platforms... Meaning yes there will be ideas on there that you may not like or agree with.

The platform itself though defends the American ideal of free speech, the idea that taking a platform away from even the worst of us risks taking the platform away from all of us.

This cheerful glee I see at the banning of free speech platforms is inherently UnAmerican, goes against the heart of Americanism and paints you as an Ameriphobic.
They are allowed to have rules just like Gaf is allowed to have rules. If I suddenly go on a racially charged tirade on Gaf then yeah I am gonna get banned. But that still would not impede on my free speech rights. I'm free to say what I want, but I am not free of the consequences of doing so. If I break Gaf's rules then Gaf is free to distance itself from me.


Free Speech =/= Free from Consequences


So Gab and other similar parties are still free to operate how it chooses to operate and say whatever it is they wanna say. However other businesses are not required to support it and there is no legal way to FORCE other businesses to do so.



I cannot for the life of me understand how people still do not get this.
 
Last edited:
May 22, 2018
3,069
2,174
240
#16
So what? ResetEra has just as awful things said on the opposite side. Twitter is full of it too. What makes Gab special?
Gaf, Twitter, Era and similar sites at least TRY to police its content and its members. Gab doesn't even TRY to do that. Also Gab is pretty upfront with what it is and doesn't try to hide it. Era, Gaf, and Twitter do not advertise themselves as being bastions for "Free Speech" which is really just a dogwhistle for racism and sexism and it shows in the content that the site allows. The sites you listed does nothing of the sort. In fact its quite the opposite. The actively advertise that they have rules that need to be abided by otherwise they will shut down such things wherever possible and they should. However that doesn't mean they are perfect. Things of course slip through the cracks. But at least they try and thats more than what Gab does.


Once again I encourage you to google the kind of stuff I am talking about and see for yourself the kind of filth they allow. Nothing like that is allowed on Twitter, Facebook or similar major social media sites without consequences.
 
Last edited:
Nov 11, 2007
9,272
444
1,085
#17
Of course GAB doesn't police content. It's a free speech platform. And yes that means there will be content you or I disagree with.

That's the point of free speech.

Your Ameriphobicism is really showing now trying to define free speech as hate speech. America was built in the concept of protecting all speech even that we disagree with.

Why do you hate America's ideals so much? :*(
 
Last edited:
Oct 11, 2011
23
30
370
#19
What if it's good to allow people to express their racism or sexism? What if the only way for people to give up these beliefs is to allow free debate and discussion and expression? What if someone told you that the most powerful argument among racists today was that people MUST censor them because their beliefs about race are true and correct, and that the other side would lose if they allowed these issues to be debated openly and honestly? What if by censoring "hate speech" you actually make the problem worse?


Here is a question for you, why are people racist? Conventional thinking is that people are racist because they are taught to be. This may be true or not. What if that wasn't the reason people are racist? The entire argument for censorship as far as I understand it is that these people were taught a set of beliefs that if not continually propagated, would go away. What if that was not the case? What if conventional thinking about why people are racist is completely wrong, and by censoring discussion we have actually created an environment that is ideal for propagating racism? It may be the case that we actually don't know anything about why people are racist, because we have decided that there should be no more discussion on this topic. If this is the case we may have inadvertently created a future that will be more racist than the past.
 

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,123
4,271
465
#20
Gaf, Twitter, Era and similar sites at least TRY to police its content and its members.
I've seen plenty of hateful generalizations and seething contempt for whole demographics on ERA. By your standards, that website should be shut down too. After all, hate is hate, doesn't matter if it's directed at minorities or gamers and white males.
 
Jan 26, 2009
5,725
219
670
37
#21
You are full of shit and I could post screenshots of the kind of shit I am talking about to prove it, but I am not 100% sure that mods would allow it given the nature of the posts.


@Bill O'Rights @Keylime Can I post screenshots of offensive statements from other platforms so long as I am not the one actually saying it or endorsing it?


Until they get back to me feel free to type in "GAB Racism" into google and go to images. Its all right there for the world to see.
I did what you said as I really don’t know what gab was. I got pictures of guns frogs and trump. And a few poor jokes. I don’t think your challenge stands up to trigger me that it’s automatically a racist cesspool. Btw I can do the same thing on twitter and pretty much any social platform and get something that someone will find racist if I type a word in racism. Try google searching dog and racism. I’m sure you will get results that trigger you.
 
Last edited:
Jan 31, 2018
508
228
190
#22
This will only work when it suddenly hits leftists then its a big outrage..before that they cheer because they are idiots, they dont care that payment processors are now shutting down even metal music labels, leftists are at heart useful idiots who put feelings above all which is why the establishment loves them.
Reminds of religion...
 

Keylime

Spoiler Tag Abuser
Staff member
Sep 10, 2018
92
305
300
#24
@Nobody_Important

I don’t think providing screenshots of the type of content hosted on Gab is necessary to make your point. As you mention, some light googling can show anyone that at the very least the site is viewed as extremely controversial.

For people talking about American ideals and freedom of speech, I don’t think anyone would object that those are things America was founded on and we should strive to protect.

That being said, America isn’t an anarchist nation...we have laws just like we have rules on websites. Furthermore, America has a strong capitalistic and “pro-private sector” mindset these days.

Private businesses are allowed to deny service to any person or company at their disgression. The moment you force a site like coinbase to allow any and everyone to use their service is the same day you force the cake shop owner guy to make penis cakes he doesn’t want to make.

The free market is supposed to decide if they want to support these businesses based on their decisions, so if you don’t approve of coinbase’s decision here, it would be well within your right to protest and boycott their service in the name of censorship.

Nothing is preventing Gab from existing (free market, freedom of speech), but nothing is preventing other businesses from denying service to companies or people at their disgression.

That’s how the laws are written today (as far as I’m aware).

So if you are angry at these kinds of deplatforming acts by businesses, you’d need to push for new laws that demand private businesses be forced to allow any and all people or companies to use their services freely without the right to deny them service (or some variation of that that serves your goal of denying private companies the right to deplatform).

Directing your anger at the specific business who isn’t doing any unlawful act isn’t the ultimate right place to put your emotion. Unless that business is legally required to do something, there’s no guarantee that they will do it. Just like our anger towards celebrities who take advantage of tax loopholes. We may find this practice immoral, but they are well within their legal capacity to do it (assuming they’re actually abusing “legal” loopholes).

Fix the laws, fix the problem.

...that’s about as neutral of a response as I can make I think?
 
Last edited:
Mar 6, 2018
1,525
1,902
290
#25
"Free Speech" which is really just a dogwhistle for racism and sexism
2019 - We need to do something about this "Free Speech," which is really just a dogwhistle for racism and sexism.

1979 - We need to do something about this "Free Speech," which is really just an excuse to promote homosexuality and other anti-American propaganda.

1919 - We need to do something about this "Free Speech," which in honesty is just an appeal to allow women to vote.


"I'm a big supporter of free speech, but freedom of speech does not include [controversial thought or opinion here]"

Yes. Yes it does. Is there such a thing as hateful speech? Sure, but it's also impossible to objectively define, not to mention dangerous to give that sort of control to any government. And these days, when companies have massive amounts of control over speech, it's becoming concerning there too. Having said that, I also think it's a complicated issue without any easy answers.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
6,250
6,227
805
Australia
#26
You are full of shit and I could post screenshots of the kind of shit I am talking about to prove it, but I am not 100% sure that mods would allow it given the nature of the posts.


@Bill O'Rights @Keylime Can I post screenshots of offensive statements from other platforms so long as I am not the one actually saying it or endorsing it?


Until they get back to me feel free to type in "GAB Racism" into google and go to images. Its all right there for the world to see.
Just post it, pussy.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
6,250
6,227
805
Australia
#28
They are allowed to have rules just like Gaf is allowed to have rules. If I suddenly go on a racially charged tirade on Gaf then yeah I am gonna get banned. But that still would not impede on my free speech rights. I'm free to say what I want, but I am not free of the consequences of doing so. If I break Gaf's rules then Gaf is free to distance itself from me.


Free Speech =/= Free from Consequences


So Gab and other similar parties are still free to operate how it chooses to operate and say whatever it is they wanna say. However other businesses are not required to support it and there is no legal way to FORCE other businesses to do so.



I cannot for the life of me understand how people still do not get this.
1. GAF is not even close to being a monopoly. Its influence at this point in time, and any point in time compared to the large platforms, is miniscule. No one cares about us, which is a good thing.

2. You have a piss poor understanding of what “freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences” means. If the consequence is effectively being unpersoned, then your speech ain’t free. Your childlike black and white view of the world is pathetic.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
6,250
6,227
805
Australia
#29
It should, but it doesn’t. They are rabid, myopic, toadies of the establishment.
Utter morons who can’t see past the ends of their own noses. Their time will come once the progressive machine has consumed all of their enemies and they’re the only ones left.

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
6,250
6,227
805
Australia
#30
@Nobody_Important

I don’t think providing screenshots of the type of content hosted on Gab is necessary to make your point. As you mention, some light googling can show anyone that at the very least the site is viewed as extremely controversial.

For people talking about American ideals and freedom of speech, I don’t think anyone would object that those are things America was founded on and we should strive to protect.

That being said, America isn’t an anarchist nation...we have laws just like we have rules on websites. Furthermore, America has a strong capitalistic and “pro-private sector” mindset these days.

Private businesses are allowed to deny service to any person or company at their disgression. The moment you force a site like coinbase to allow any and everyone to use their service is the same day you force the cake shop owner guy to make penis cakes he doesn’t want to make.

The free market is supposed to decide if they want to support these businesses based on their decisions, so if you don’t approve of coinbase’s decision here, it would be well within your right to protest and boycott their service in the name of censorship.

Nothing is preventing Gab from existing (free market, freedom of speech), but nothing is preventing other businesses from denying service to companies or people at their disgression.

That’s how the laws are written today (as far as I’m aware).

So if you are angry at these kinds of deplatforming acts by businesses, you’d need to push for new laws that demand private businesses be forced to allow any and all people or companies to use their services freely without the right to deny them service (or some variation of that that serves your goal of denying private companies the right to deplatform).

Directing your anger at the specific business who isn’t doing any unlawful act isn’t the ultimate right place to put your emotion. Unless that business is legally required to do something, there’s no guarantee that they will do it. Just like our anger towards celebrities who take advantage of tax loopholes. We may find this practice immoral, but they are well within their legal capacity to do it (assuming they’re actually abusing “legal” loopholes).

Fix the laws, fix the problem.

...that’s about as neutral of a response as I can make I think?
How do you factor technology and monopolies into this? Everything you say is perfectly reasonable if we are are talking about traditional physical goods, but the tech giants have completely changed the game. They have seized the means of speech production.
 
Jan 12, 2009
15,770
1,353
835
#33
Utter morons who can’t see past the ends of their own noses. Their time will come once the progressive machine has consumed all of their enemies and they’re the only ones left.

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Devillaughing.gif

#Sowoke
#Doomsday
 

Keylime

Spoiler Tag Abuser
Staff member
Sep 10, 2018
92
305
300
#34
How do you factor technology and monopolies into this? Everything you say is perfectly reasonable if we are are talking about traditional physical goods, but the tech giants have completely changed the game. They have seized the means of speech production.
It’s a great question.

Obviously platforms like Twitter or Facebook are gigantic and give you access to a much broader reach than something like a Gab would.

It’s like Conan getting kicked off NBC and being forced into TBS. There are alternatives, these people will always have somewhere to go if they’re removed from the big platforms, but no question their potential reach is really hit hard.

I guess it’s hard to classify an online resource as a monopoly, as there isn’t any barrier for competition. Someone can make another Facebook and everyone would have equal opportunity to join it, but the nature of social platforms is that their value is essentially determined by their user base. I just don’t think we have any reasonable law that could make some kind of sense that would force these companies to comply.

Perhaps regulations on TOS and enforcement of that TOS? When these deplatforming hits comes, they’re essentially blindsided without any kind of warning or awareness. The only reasonable thing I can think of would be that a platform could only legally remove someone for activity that took place on their service that breaks their TOS?

This coinbase thing comes off much more like activism compared to Facebook/iTunes/Twitter who at least had content to point to on their platforms that they could argue breaks some kind of terms in their TOS, I don’t imagine GAB did anything illegal or TOS breaking on Coinbase...Coinbase likely saw that their services were being associated with Gab and didn’t want the media attention that their service was somehow involved or being used...and thus “endorsing them” by not removing them.

Any kind of law I would imagine would have to focus on anti-activism deplatforming...but I honestly don’t see how we could ever standardize this. As long as each service writes their own TOS, it will include an “I can do whatever I want to you” statement as a catch all. The regulation proposed would have to essentially force all platforms to be explicit about what specific actions can have people denied service...but even THAT I’m sure could be written in the TOS in a way that would give them enough room to do as they see fit.

Not an easy problem to solve, for sure.

In today’s shock and outrage culture, it appears as though companies have decided that its best for them to do this kind of stuff...

...my personal opinion is that we’ve kind of created this world now where doing anything at all viewed as controversial is essentially demanding society to exhile you...with no shortage of things that will offend people from all walks of life. There isn’t a standard for what offends people, so offending anyone is easy to do, and potentially very impactful.

As a world culture everything is going to switch from NC-17 to G rating. We’re probably at a PG-13 right now, on our way down.

That episode of Black Mirror with the social rating is the future! 😐
 
Last edited:
Nov 11, 2007
9,272
444
1,085
#35
It’s a great question.

Obviously platforms like Twitter or Facebook are gigantic and give you access to a much broader reach than something like a Gab would.

It’s like Conan getting kicked off NBC and being forced into TBS. There are alternatives, these people will always have somewhere to go if they’re removed from the big platforms, but no question their potential reach is really hit hard.

I guess it’s hard to classify an online resource as a monopoly, as there isn’t any barrier for competition. Someone can make another Facebook and everyone would have equal opportunity to join it, but the nature of social platforms is that their value is essentially determined by their user base. I just don’t think we have any reasonable law that could make some kind of sense that would force these companies to comply.

Perhaps regulations on TOS and enforcement of that TOS? When these deplatforming hits comes, they’re essentially blindsided without any kind of warning or awareness. The only reasonable thing I can think of would be that a platform could only legally remove someone for activity that took place on their service that breaks their TOS?

This coinbase thing comes off much more like activism compared to Facebook/iTunes/Twitter who at least had content to point to on their platforms that they could argue breaks some kind of terms in their TOS, I don’t imagine GAB did anything illegal or TOS breaking on Coinbase...Coinbase likely saw that their services were being associated with Gab and didn’t want the media attention that their service was somehow involved or being used...and thus “endorsing them” by not removing them.

Any kind of law I would imagine would have to focus on anti-activism deplatforming...but I honestly don’t see how we could ever standardize this. As long as each service writes their own TOS, it will include an “I can do whatever I want to you” statement as a catch all. The regulation proposed would have to essentially force all platforms to be explicit about what specific actions can have people denied service...but even THAT I’m sure could be written in the TOS in a way that would give them enough room to do as they see fit.

Not an easy problem to solve, for sure.

In today’s shock and outrage culture, it appears as though companies have decided that its best for them to do this kind of stuff...

...my personal opinion is that we’ve kind of created this world now where doing anything at all viewed as controversial is essentially demanding society to exhile you...with no shortage of things that will offend people from all walks of life. There isn’t a standard for what offends people, so offending anyone is easy to do, and potentially very impactful.

As a world culture everything is going to switch from NC-17 to G rating. We’re probably at a PG-13 right now, on our way down.

That episode of Black Mirror with the social rating is the future! 😐
The Coinbase thing is likely because of Mastercard although I admit this is conjecture.. The payment processors are leaning hard (see Sargon and his banning from Patreon).
 
Last edited:
Nov 11, 2018
116
42
150
#38
This attempt to censor ideas should worry everyone on both sides of the aisle.
Promoters of genocidal ideologies should be deplatformed at all levels. GAB was founded for the express purpose of curating a community of white supremacists and anti-semites whose views are not just "ideas," but calls for violence against the people their "ideas" are targeting. Also, this isn't "censorship," because they're more than welcome to make an attempt to create an alternative. The government isn't preventing them from doing so.
 
Jan 26, 2018
759
815
190
#39
Promoters of genocidal ideologies should be deplatformed at all levels. GAB was founded for the express purpose of curating a community of white supremacists and anti-semites whose views are not just "ideas," but calls for violence against the people their "ideas" are targeting. Also, this isn't "censorship," because they're more than welcome to make an attempt to create an alternative. The government isn't preventing them from doing so.
Dangerous road you're going down my friend. Just wait till a far left site gets shut down for because they want to kill all white people. I'll wait /s. It's an obvious bias that will eventually turn to the far left like all pendulums. I bet your tone will change then ;)
 
Nov 11, 2018
116
42
150
#40
The right to free speech free of government persecution is the hallmark of the American Republic.

Unfortunately many corporations are obtaining such massive monopolies and social power that they threaten the intent behind the first amendment.

The platforms themselves are FREE SPEECH platforms... Meaning yes there will be ideas on there that you may not like or agree with.

The platform itself though defends the American ideal of free speech, the idea that taking a platform away from even the worst of us risks taking the platform away from all of us.

This cheerful glee I see at the banning of free speech platforms is inherently UnAmerican, goes against the heart of Americanism and paints you as an Ameriphobic.
Why do all "FREE SPEECH" platforms seemingly trade in the promulgation of views that, if realized, would threaten the very real freedom of blacks, gays, Jews and other minorities?
 
Last edited:
Nov 11, 2018
116
42
150
#42
Dangerous road you're going down my friend. Just wait till a far left site gets shut down for because they want to kill all white people. I'll wait /s. It's an obvious bias that will eventually turn to the far left like all pendulums. I bet your tone will change then ;)
I don't know of any "far left" site that wants to kill all white people. The "far left" is comprised of mostly white people.
 
Nov 11, 2018
116
42
150
#44
What if it's good to allow people to express their racism or sexism? What if the only way for people to give up these beliefs is to allow free debate and discussion and expression? What if someone told you that the most powerful argument among racists today was that people MUST censor them because their beliefs about race are true and correct, and that the other side would lose if they allowed these issues to be debated openly and honestly? What if by censoring "hate speech" you actually make the problem worse?


Here is a question for you, why are people racist? Conventional thinking is that people are racist because they are taught to be. This may be true or not. What if that wasn't the reason people are racist? The entire argument for censorship as far as I understand it is that these people were taught a set of beliefs that if not continually propagated, would go away. What if that was not the case? What if conventional thinking about why people are racist is completely wrong, and by censoring discussion we have actually created an environment that is ideal for propagating racism? It may be the case that we actually don't know anything about why people are racist, because we have decided that there should be no more discussion on this topic. If this is the case we may have inadvertently created a future that will be more racist than the past.
Until the system of systemic white supremacy is combated and eventually overturned, there will always be a large population of white supremacists and anti-semites in this world. So, save for that remote possibility happening in our lifetimes, deplatforming them is one among many other measures that will suffice. I'm not sure what you defenders of "free speech" want, because these efforts at supposed "censorship" are much preferable - I imagine - to other forms of deplatforming that you most likely do not want your opponents to implement. Deal with it and form your own companies to support the freeze peach.
 
Last edited:
Dec 3, 2013
16,381
9,020
555
#47
Suspect, how? Racism, misogyny, and anti-LGBT aren't tolerated on Resetera. I have problems with some of the people there, but there's no denying that they're vigilant against bigotry.
Only select forms of it, while it runs rampant against other races, genders, and lifestyles.

You ain't fooling anyone. Besides, we have a thread for it, you can go challenge the proof there.
 
Last edited:
Mar 6, 2018
1,525
1,902
290
#48
Such as? Say what you will about ResetEra, but their moderation team is very vigilant when it comes to guarding against the spread of bigotry.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/bigot

bigot

noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
British Dictionary definitions for bigot

noun
a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race
Word Origin and History for bigot
n.
1590s, "sanctimonious person, religious hypocrite," from French bigot (12c.), of unknownorigin.
I used to think "bigot" was a catch-all term for racist and sexist as well, but it's not. It's actual definition is considerably different.
 
Nov 11, 2007
9,272
444
1,085
#50
Until the system of systemic white supremacy is combated and eventually overturned, there will always be a large population of white supremacists and anti-semites in this world. So, save for that remote possibility happening in our lifetimes, deplatforming them is one among many other measures that will suffice. I'm not sure what you defenders of "free speech" want, because these efforts at supposed "censorship" are much preferable - I imagine - to other forms of deplatforming that you most likely do not want your opponents to implement. Deal with it and form your own companies to support the freeze peach.
There is no such thing as a system of systemic white supremacy in the US.. That is a very Ameriphobic claim as it usually entails tearing down American values such as meritocracy, freedom of speech, and equality of opportunity in favor of the communist equality of outcomes, censorship via unfairly applied “hate” speech laws, and straight up justification of racism by claiming victimhood status.

That’s the irony of it all — Ameriphobic and racist, blinded by a false perception of victimhood to justify stripping away freedoms in the name of a twisted morality that glorifies race and gender over shared humanity and Americanism.

As for the FoRm YoUr oWn CoMpAnIeS bullshit we’ve all seen the Regressive poisoness ideology that’s taken root with payment processors ... how is ones company supposed to bill customers if visa MasterCard, American Express, Discover, Coinbase, Patreon and Paypal have blacklisted American Patriots who hold Free Speech as one of the most important if not THE most important American value? Short of the government busting these companies up with antitrust lawsuits, this is tyranny by monopoly.

It’s tyranny and it’s not going to stand one way or the other.

For the most part true Americans just want to be left alone ... it’s Fake Americans aka the Regressive Left that is forcing the issue.









.
 
Last edited: