Gab going down and back up

Mar 18, 2018
1,490
994
230
#51
Nope , I think you don't understand what the nature of what you are implying is , like any website GAB needs an infrastructure to support it , these providers are not forced to do business with GAB if they don't want to, you can't force a private business to go against their own terms of service to serve a company with questionable morals , welcome to the free market.
A company is being deplatformed for letting have users who haven't violated the Section 512(c) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act or Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act or even their platform holder's TOS.

You can easily hold Neogaf to the same free speech notion you are preaching , size has never been a factor in any case , like Twitter here you can't say certain things that go against the TOS doing so would see you removed from the site , the same goes for Twitter , YouTube and Facebook we sign that away when you become a member. So there's no point in playing coy when it comes to holding other sites to that same standard .
Sorry. Neogaf is a content publishisher legally speaking. You are the one who knows little about what you speak of. Facebook, Twitter, Gab, and the rest are Platforms. They enjoy legal protection from liability.

Do you take the same issue when banks refuse to take in drug money or money that came from an I'll gotten means. When you sign up to a service they can just as quickly revoke it.
False equivalence. Banks have a legal obligation to not violate federal or national laws or have clients the violate laws. Paypal and Stripe are making politically biased choices to take down or cajole a competitor of their cohorts. There will only be one Twitter hive mind, so saith the payment processors and some server/cloud providers.

This does not matter , what matters is making sure that your company has a good reputation in the public's eye, doing business with a company like GAB of the Dailystormer only brings in a negative spot light , nothing is stopping these Alt Right tech CEOs from making their own infrastructure where they can preach their hate and intolerance
The people are not deciding anything. The companies are. You think Pepsi or Johnson and Johnson are going to create their own Stripe, or go to Paypal, for an agile to-market subsidiary company because Gab was allowed to take credit card payments through Stripe and had some people on there exercising their 1st Amendment right even though they were a fucking asshole? What world do you live in?

edit: removed some englishing to make something clear
 
Last edited:
Likes: Oner
Dec 15, 2011
2,155
3,448
535
#53
The society you want is going to be a scary place. I hope I am dead before it happens honestly.
:messenger_blowing_kiss:
Reveling in the potential death of those who don't share your views.
Truly a noble ambition and an example for all civil, level-headed people to look up to.

And, irony of ironies: You are the one removed from society.
Whilst you're away, you could let that first-hand example sink in and teach you a much needed lesson about equality, society, tolerance and understanding.

I shan't hold my breath.
 
Apr 8, 2009
20,196
855
405
#54
If Facebook and their ilk want to ban anyone and everyone they deem fit then they become a content provider and not a content platform. There is a legal distinction. But you already knew that didn't you?
No it isn’t. I assume you’re talking about CDA section 230, but it doesn’t say anything like that.

In any event I was talking about the desire by the right to use the state to force private property owners to disseminate speech the right wants disseminated. That you keep referring to “evolving” the law to do so confirms what I was saying.
 
Last edited:
Jan 8, 2018
644
741
210
#56
Since fucking WHEN is this kind of shit the "truth"??


And you wonder why i said what i said in the APU thread?!?! You might want to take a look at Twitter and how every single minute of every single day how racist people are on Twitter as well, you big ole hypocrite!!! Practice what you preach bro, your schtick is getting old as hell.
 
Likes: Oner

Ke0

Member
Aug 10, 2012
2,077
488
430
Reading, Berkshire
#58
Until the data center kicks them out. Then they have to build their own data centers. Then the data providers pull their support. Or the banks pull their merchant account.

And every rung they move down takes them farther away from being able to compete financially against a highly biased competitor and their colluding platform holders.
Which won't even be a problem considering there are literally thousands upon thousands of hosting services in the US alone.

If neo-nazi sites and platforms can find a way I'm sure Gab can.

It's funny how both political parties in the US like to pretend they're suddenly not pro-corporation
 
Oct 1, 2006
3,354
2,776
1,090
#62
The free market, LOL.

edit: another lol

I'm not sure these people understand their own arguments:



One is talking about people who would spout "1488" being interested in children, then the other brings up a political compass where that demographic is in the Right-Libertarian quadrant, when they would clearly be in the Right-Authoritarian quadrant.

I'd expect most sexual abuse takes place in structures on the A-side of the scale, Left and Right. R-A includes theocracies, ethnostates, etc., which at their extremes often do have child marriages as they are very inwardly focused. L-A tend to move toward government-supported plutocracy, which leads to more degeneracy in the defacto ruling class.
 
Jul 16, 2017
1,116
780
345
#64
And this is exactly why you lost your point the moments you started quoting US laws to a UK citizen , that is the level of complexity you need to overcome if you want to impose your laws on a website that is accessible from anywhere on the globe .


Sorry. Neogaf is a content publishisher legally speaking. You are the one who knows little about what you speak of. Facebook, Twitter, Gab, and the rest are Platforms. They enjoy legal protection from liability.
It's an internet forum and like all the other social media sites operates in a similar manner . The same way Reddit is relying on its users to generate discussion on its site but shuts down sub reddits that prove to me detrimental to its growth by subjecting them to their TOS the same goes for here . This is how a free market operates if you don't like it then maybe you need to see how China conducts it's business with the way they censor the Internet , if you truly want governments to run sites like Facebook and Twitter .



False equivalence. Banks have a legal obligation to not violate federal or national laws or have clients the violate laws. Paypal and Stripe are making politically biased choices to take down or cajole a competitor of their cohorts. There will only be one Twitter hive mind, so saith the payment processors and some server/cloud providers.

PayPal and stripe don't have to do business with people that dont want to , it's simple as that . You can't force private corporations to take clients that violate what they stand for.
Again if this is new to you this is how a free market operates.

The people are not deciding anything. The companies are. You think Pepsi or Johnson and Johnson are going to create their own Stripe, or go to Paypal, for an agile to-market subsidiary company because Gab was allowed to take credit card payments through Stripe and had some people on there exercising their 1st Amendment right even though they were a fucking asshole? What world do you live in?
I live in the world where private companies are allowed to serve whom ever they want to without being pressured into taking the business of Nazis and racist , that's the reality we live in right now so unless you want to take your one man march to Congress and ask them to take control over private companies so they can do bank transfers for racist deplorables then be my guest, let me know how far that goes .
 
Oct 3, 2004
1,468
1,007
1,290
Montreal, Quebec
#65
Competition is good, nobody should be in favor of Gab being shut down, regardless of what you think about the views expressed there. The internet is already far too homogeneous as it is, much more so than it was twenty years ago. Can anyone explain to me why you would want to keep moving in that direction?
 
Jan 8, 2018
644
741
210
#66
And this is exactly why you lost your point the moments you started quoting US laws to a UK citizen , that is the level of complexity you need to overcome if you want to impose your laws on a website that is accessible from anywhere on the globe .




It's an internet forum and like all the other social media sites operates in a similar manner . The same way Reddit is relying on its users to generate discussion on its site but shuts down sub reddits that prove to me detrimental to its growth by subjecting them to their TOS the same goes for here . This is how a free market operates if you don't like it then maybe you need to see how China conducts it's business with the way they censor the Internet , if you truly want governments to run sites like Facebook and Twitter .






PayPal and stripe don't have to do business with people that dont want to , it's simple as that . You can't force private corporations to take clients that violate what they stand for.
Again if this is new to you this is how a free market operates.



I live in the world where private companies are allowed to serve whom ever they want to without being pressured into taking the business of Nazis and racist , that's the reality we live in right now so unless you want to take your one man march to Congress and ask them to take control over private companies so they can do bank transfers for racist deplorables then be my guest, let me know how far that goes .

You are just as bad as Nobody_Important. You are not here to debate, you are here to just espouse your own ideology and nothing else. Twitter is just as Toxic as Gab and yet you are arguing that it's okay to shut down what you don't support but god forbid if Twitter we're to have support for their platform dropped by other companies, you would be screaming racism from the rooftops, censorship, etc. Hypocrisy from you SJW types is glaringly obvious.
 
Likes: jolof96
Mar 18, 2018
1,490
994
230
#69
I live in the world where private companies are allowed to serve whom ever they want to without being pressured into taking the business of Nazis and racist , that's the reality we live in right now so unless you want to take your one man march to Congress and ask them to take control over private companies so they can do bank transfers for racist deplorables then be my guest, let me know how far that goes .
So you are saying a Muslim who lives in Turkey is a Nazi? The tangled webs we weave when we use social justice to deceive.
 
Aug 2, 2015
4,751
380
335
#71
It's one thing to drop the client. That's fine. But it should be illegal to do it with such short notice. They should have given them at least 2-4 weeks to find replacement.

Also...all this talk about full freedom of business sure makes the entire whining about net neutrality seem like pure garbage
 
Likes: matt404au
Oct 3, 2004
1,468
1,007
1,290
Montreal, Quebec
#72
Gab reminds me of that stereotype of women getting in gossip circles, except here its guys on the internet and its not a stereotype. It’s reality. They’re gabbing away.
I had no idea it existed until all the talk about Alt Righters sprung up online, eventually wound up following one on Youtube to get a first-hand view of who they really are and she happened to have a Gab link in her profile. Sure enough, her Youtube channel and Twitter accounts wound up getting suspended, but my curiosity only went so far and I never spent any time browsing Gab.

Going back to see what she's been up to, seems she's been active on Twitter (linked Soros' Open Society Foundation NGO to the "Skylight Productions" human rights film crew following the migrant caravan - my curiosity is getting the better of me here, has anyone verified/disproved this yet?) and is now back on Youtube, too.
 
Dec 3, 2013
18,461
12,144
565
#73
It's one thing to drop the client. That's fine. But it should be illegal to do it with such short notice. They should have given them at least 2-4 weeks to find replacement.

Also...all this talk about full freedom of business sure makes the entire whining about net neutrality seem like pure garbage
"Only a problem when it impacts my personal wants/needs/partisanship life." ;)
 
Jan 25, 2018
3,087
3,735
285
29
Southeastern USA
#75
So in the recent mod note this is there as a point of reference for what will most likely catch you a ban



Is this a violation of that freedom of speech you think you have
You can't see the difference between "Making blatant and direct attacks against other users or people" and stating views and opinions?

Expecting your forum to be civil is one thing, an echo chamber is another.

When did common sense die?
 
Mar 5, 2007
9,151
127
1,045
#76
Any centralized platform is not going to be able to be free in the long term. There are too many pressures on them to do otherwise.

Also, even if a hypothetical platform were powerful and principled enough to resist those pressures, it isn't wise to have that much centralized power for other reasons.

Personally, I've always viewed social networks as a mistake and a step backwards for the internet in that they create too much centralization of power, but now that we have them we have to replace them with decentralized versions as soon as possible.

This is the only solution to the problem, it's not something that can be fixed with government regulation, or by market forces, It's something that needs a technological solution. There are many such projects being worked on currently, I am personally really interested to see where something like Minds ends up going. I think the big decentralized project so far(Mastodon) is a giant failure, as it looks like the more popular nodes(at least in the US) have even worse censorship than the big corporate networks. I think the federal model isn't what we need. What we need it total decentralization of the database, and then people can layer on their own content filtering and display algorithms on top of the shared database. So if you want the raw uncut feed, you have access, but if you want your walled garden, you have options you can choose from without having to leave all your data behind.
 
Last edited:
May 22, 2018
4,005
2,789
265
#77
And you wonder why i said what i said in the APU thread?!?! You might want to take a look at Twitter and how every single minute of every single day how racist people are on Twitter as well, you big ole hypocrite!!! Practice what you preach bro, your schtick is getting old as hell.
Awwww Shiiiiit, calling out the hypocrites with proof, now you done it @DeepEnigma . What do you have to say now about Twitter @AfricanKing ? @Dude Abides ? @Nobody_Important ? Still want to shut shit down that you are such champions of?
There is no hypocrisy. I think those people should be banned from Twitter as well.


Hypocrisy would be me saying that it's not okay to be racist on GAB, but it's okay to be racist on Twitter. Which is not what I am saying at all. Twitter actually polices it's content and it's users and sends out bans and warnings about such content all the time. It actually upholds it's terms of service. Whereas GAB doesn't even TRY to deal with such people. It just lets them roam freely and say whatever the hell they want. So it's not the same thing and they are not equal comparisons.
 
Last edited:
Feb 18, 2018
268
258
215
#78
There is no hypocrisy. I think those people should be banned from Twitter as well.


Hypocrisy would be me saying that it's not okay to be racist on GAB, but it's okay to be racist on Twitter. Which is not what I am saying at all. Twitter actually polices it's content and it's users and sends out bans and warnings about such content all the time. It actually upholds it's terms of service. Whereas GAB doesn't even TRY to deal with such people. It just lets them roam freely and say whatever the hell they want. So it's not the same thing and they are not equal comparisons.
Twitter upholds their TOS? You sure? Please double check on that first.
 
Feb 18, 2018
268
258
215
#80
Do they ban people for violating their terms of service? Yes they do.


Do they catch everyone? Of course not. It's practically impossible. But at least they try. GAB doesn't even try. My point still stands.


I can point out other things like James Woods getting banned for posting a meme, public threats against conservatives not "bannable", ban on Candace Owens, Owen Benjamin, ban on firearm content, Shadowbanning, mass bans on people who used NPC memes etc.

If you think Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and the like uphold their ever shapeshifting TOS equally... you sir are kidding yourself. This was talked about to the death already about social media moguls being authoritarian so much that them being a platform is being in question.

Now with that you can see why free speech platforms are on the rise.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Oner
Feb 18, 2018
268
258
215
#83
Platforms like GAB are on the rise? It was my understanding that they were ditched by PayPal and are having trouble even finding a host provider.
As far as I know, paypal ain't the people. In fact they added fuel to the fire as now people know gab now (in fact, gab went down during the news cycle so people can't check out the site). Not to mention this proves the conservative point of silicon valley moguls hellbent on forcing deplatforming on everyone who disagrees.

When gab keep staying up from crowdsourcing alone to a point of paypal having to play god to stop them, they know the alternative media sites are gaining traction and will do anything to stop them on their tracks.
 
Apr 15, 2018
2,454
2,819
230
#85
Yeah it's a twitter alternative, that built itself up on free speech then engaged in hypocrisy when it started banning legal stuff morally offensive to right wing conservatives.

That said, taking it down because of one lunatic (who also posted on twitter and Facebook and probably reddit) is ridiculous. US government needs to break up these tech giants. They're colluding in gross anti-competitive antics.
Okay, really I highly doubt lolicon porn only offends right wing conservatives.
 
Jun 17, 2004
3,985
478
1,345
USA
#86


I can point out other things like James Woods getting banned for posting a meme, public threats against conservatives not "bannable", ban on Candace Owens, Owen Benjamin, ban on firearm content, Shadowbanning, mass bans on people who used NPC memes etc.

If you think Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and the like uphold their ever shapeshifting TOS equally... you sir are kidding yourself. This was talked about to the death already about social media moguls being authoritarian so much that them being a platform is being in question.

Now with that you can see why free speech platforms are on the rise.
wow, how gullible are you people, really???

Why would you ever share this image? Why would you look at something clearly designed to manipulate you, and confidently post it to prove a point? This says nothing about Twitter, and it says everything about you. You are posting this without any critical thought, without even bothering to check to see if you can find the Tweet in question, without asking yourself why some information in the image would be redacted. You don't care about the details because you desperately want your persecution complex validated, thus you don't care if someone is bullshitting you, as long as that bullshit can fuel your pity party

All identifying information for the "white people" tweet is blocked out. Why???
Who posted this Tweet?
Is it still up, or was it taken down?
How do we know the twitter help desk response is related to this Tweet, as the only identification in the help desk response is blacked out for no real reason?

Why is the "black people" account uncensored, if the "white people" account needed to be protected for an unknown reason?
Hell, why isn't the associated email address censored? We didn't need this for either account, but we got it for this one...
We can see this account has been suspended for "abusive behavior", but we have no idea what else the account published and how it may have affected Twitter's decision. This tweet may not even have been involved, or may have been part of a pattern

We have no reason to believe the "white people" account was not suspended, because we can't verify that the post is still up.
We have no reason to believe the help desk response for the "white people" account is related to that specific Tweet
We have no reason to believe the "black people" account was suspended for that specific tweet
We also know nothing about the accounts. We know nothing about how many followers they had, how large their reach was, how much they appeared to be automation, how many people in total reported them, other abuses or contributions, etc. All of these things will determine when Twitter acts
Finally, we can Google similar terms for either post and we will find a plethora of Tweets hating both black and white people which Twitter hasn't removed:
https://twitter.com/search?q="I fucking hate white people"&src=typd
https://twitter.com/search?q="I fucking hate black people"&src=typd
Twitter is letting this rhetoric fly rampantly in both directions with no repercussions

Oh and here's an attempt to find that specific Tweet:
https://twitter.com/search?src=typd&q="I fucking hate white people and their inconsiderate asses for voting for Trump. Fuck you."
All we see is assholes parroting it. Maybe someone better with Twitter than I am can actually find the Tweet, would be helpful. If we can't find it, it's pretty clear that the Tweet was also removed, or the image is BS

I agree that Twitter should be more transparent and more consistent when applying their terms of service. I would like to see them be more publicly specific about all bans, by providing reason on banned accounts' pages. We should be able to see what was infringed so we can understand what not to do. Instead we get a generic redirect:
https://twitter.com/nero?lang=en
And for that matter, why does the account in your image not indicate a proper redirect?
https://twitter.com/theYuriBezmenov?lang=en
I'm going to assume there's a technical reason for this that I don't understand, rather than assuming the above image is fabricated. If anyone knows, please explain

The issue is that Twitter is massive. I really think most of you don't appreciate the volume of text posted to Twitter (500 million tweets a day). Twitter cannot read and parse every Tweet. They are relying on algorithms and user reports to determine what is or isn't acceptable. The above two search links prove this point. Look how many Twitter posts currently "hate" both black and white people without being removed. Some of them are clearly jokes, some of them are calling out others, but some of them (in each case) could obviously be interpreted as hate speech, yet they remain. If no one reports them, Twitter ain't gonna care
 
Last edited:

PKM

Gold Member
Oct 11, 2017
797
810
370
#87
While I believe any speech, be it racists/bigoted etc.., should be protected at all cost under freedom of speech..
I also believe that rule doesnt apply to private corporations and they are free to deplatform who and whatever they want.
 
Feb 18, 2018
268
258
215
#88
wow, how gullible are you people, really???

Why would you ever share this image? Why would you look at something clearly designed to manipulate you, and confidently post it to prove a point? This says nothing about Twitter, and it says everything about you. You are posting this without any critical thought, without even bothering to check to see if you can find the Tweet in question, without asking yourself why some information in the image would be redacted. You don't care about the details because you desperately want your persecution complex validated, thus you don't care if someone is bullshitting you, as long as that bullshit can fuel your pity party

All identifying information for the "white people" tweet is blocked out. Why???
Who posted this Tweet?
Is it still up, or was it taken down?
How do we know the twitter help desk response is related to this Tweet, as the only identification in the help desk response is blacked out for no real reason?

Why is the "black people" account uncensored, if the "white people" account needed to be protected for an unknown reason?
Hell, why isn't the associated email address censored? We didn't need this for either account, but we got it for this one...
We can see this account has been suspended for "abusive behavior", but we have no idea what else the account published and how it may have affected Twitter's decision. This tweet may not even have been involved, or may have been part of a pattern

We have no reason to believe the "white people" account was not suspended, because we can't verify that the post is still up.
We have no reason to believe the help desk response for the "white people" account is related to that specific Tweet
We have no reason to believe the "black people" account was suspended for that specific tweet
We also know nothing about the accounts. We know nothing about how many followers they had, how large their reach was, how much they appeared to be automation, how many people in total reported them, other abuses or contributions, etc. All of these things will determine when Twitter acts
Finally, we can Google similar terms for either post and we will find a plethora of Tweets hating both black and white people which Twitter hasn't removed:
https://twitter.com/search?q="I fucking hate white people"&src=typd
https://twitter.com/search?q="I fucking hate black people"&src=typd
Twitter is letting this rhetoric fly rampantly in both directions with no repercussions

Oh and here's an attempt to find that specific Tweet:
https://twitter.com/search?src=typd&q="I fucking hate white people and their inconsiderate asses for voting for Trump. Fuck you."
All we see is assholes parroting it. Maybe someone better with Twitter than I am can actually find the Tweet, would be helpful. If we can't find it, it's pretty clear that the Tweet was also removed, or the image is BS

I agree that Twitter should be more transparent and more consistent when applying their terms of service. I would like to see them be more publicly specific about all bans, by providing reason on banned accounts' pages. We should be able to see what was infringed so we can understand what not to do. Instead we get a generic redirect:
https://twitter.com/nero?lang=en
And for that matter, why does the account in your image not indicate a proper redirect?
https://twitter.com/theYuriBezmenov?lang=en
I'm going to assume there's a technical reason for this that I don't understand, rather than assuming the above image is fabricated. If anyone knows, please explain

The issue is that Twitter is massive. I really think most of you don't appreciate the volume of text posted to Twitter (500 million tweets a day). Twitter cannot read and parse every Tweet. They are relying on algorithms and user reports to determine what is or isn't acceptable. The above two search links prove this point. Look how many Twitter posts currently "hate" both black and white people without being removed. Some of them are clearly jokes, some of them are calling out others, but some of them (in each case) could obviously be interpreted as hate speech, yet they remain. If no one reports them, Twitter ain't gonna care
That 2 tweets was experiment on smurf accounts and it was not the only experiment and cases of the same topic. The most recent one is sarah jeong just for one example, along with others I already mentioned. The thing tho is you probably wont hear it if your news only come from MSM (unless it blew up so much they cant ignore it).

Guess what, twitter did cover their tracks and suspend many of these accounts that show what I am showing plus more. It is still going to be available somewhere on an archive.is but I cant search for a million of it right now.

On your last point, twitter and jack are covering their asses right now because of ted cruz proposing of removal of their platform protections as they keep handpicking stuff like a publisher. They even have a congressional hearing about it. When they purposely shadowban, remove and add trends, ban conservatives left and right, they are acting more as a publisher and have the grounds for removing protections (government has legal rights to do what tech companies do to gab if someone sue). And no I dont care if they are moderating gazillion messages if they are prying through my data and sell it for profit.

And yes, they are not transparent with their TOS, same with facebook and youtube (adpocalypse anyone?). The people who use social media as part of their living already knows this and pretty much the writing on the wall. Everyone knows that they are biased as eff and it came to a point where lefties are using corporate private free market arguments to justify the censoring and deplatforming.
 
Jul 16, 2017
1,116
780
345
#89
You are just as bad as Nobody_Important. You are not here to debate, you are here to just espouse your own ideology and nothing else. Twitter is just as Toxic as Gab and yet you are arguing that it's okay to shut down what you don't support but god forbid if Twitter we're to have support for their platform dropped by other companies, you would be screaming racism from the rooftops, censorship, etc. Hypocrisy from you SJW types is glaringly obvious.
Twitter actually attempt to take action where needed unlike the GAB. They have a nice equilibrium of left and right users unlike gab which is just a cesspool for the most undesirable people on the planet.


So you are saying a Muslim who lives in Turkey is a Nazi? The tangled webs we weave when we use social justice to deceive.
Who called him a Nazi, he wants to enable alt righters to his going to have to deal with the blow back
 
Oct 24, 2017
6,406
5,486
335
#91
Twitter actually attempt to take action where needed unlike the GAB. They have a nice equilibrium of left and right users unlike gab which is just a cesspool for the most undesirable people on the planet.




Who called him a Nazi, he wants to enable alt righters to his going to have to deal with the blow back
If you are living in fascist Turkey right now the biggest concern you would have is freedom of speech. And yes with this freedom you also enable bad people to speak up but this is what we need to endure in a democracy and a free country. It is important to not make their voices louder by trying to silence them because this gives them martyr status.
 
Aug 2, 2015
4,751
380
335
#92
Paypal is under no obligation to provide service to anyone. Seem fair.
And that's wrong. THey should be. Same with domain registration services, cloud protections and hosting companies. If you took money from a client you should be obligated to at the very least provide them with enough notice before terminating the service that would realistically give them chance to look for alternatives.
 

njr

Member
Jan 26, 2009
872
90
760
#93
Just read about this now, here’s a recap for the uninitiated:

Tim Pool reports Gab only has twice the hate speech content that twitter has which if that’s the case surprises me because all I hear about gab are it’s detractors which claim it’s almost entirely hate speech. I’m trying to understand the circular logic that is “if you don’t like censorship go make your own platform” -> “your platform is reprehensible because of the users in it so you should re-think about the way your platform is run”. That won’t give it many options other than to be a carbon copy of its competitors.

The argument I have to encourage more free speech on these platforms is that these people can actually come out of the woodwork, so we can know what they are up to. Twitter made it possible to know what Cesar Sayoc was up to, Gab made it possible to know what the latest perpetrator was up to. If they’re not on these platforms, how do you know what they’re planning? The only missing piece in my opinion were authorities being alerted about it.

For a social network outside the core beliefs of censorship it doesn’t seem to be possible to run using conventional means of service. Perhaps the technology isn’t there yet for a fully decentralized solution, but one option I see for money is crypto currency.
 
Apr 8, 2009
20,196
855
405
#95
Awwww Shiiiiit, calling out the hypocrites with proof, now you done it @DeepEnigma . What do you have to say now about Twitter @AfricanKing ? @Dude Abides ? @Nobody_Important ? Still want to shut shit down that you are such champions of?
Sure paypal should cut ties with Twitter. I dont give a shit. Lol at you thinking this was some kind of own. What the 4chan right always fails to understand is not everyone is always angry online and caring deeply about social media like they are.
 
Last edited:
Likes: AfricanKing
Jan 7, 2018
2,193
885
320
#96
Howard Dean: Gab should be tried as accomplice to murder in synagogue slayings
https://thehill.com/policy/technolo...be-tried-as-accomplice-to-murder-in-synagogue

Former Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean said late Sunday that Gab, the social media platform used by the suspect in the Pittsburgh synagogue mass shooting, "should be tried for being an accomplice to murder."
"You are a facilitator of neo nazis and other haters. You should be tried for being an accomplice to murder," Dean, a former governor of Vermont, wrote in a tweet. "You’re lucky shutting you down is all you get. A lot luckier than the 11 Jews in Pittsburgh were or the two African Americans murdered in Kentucky were."
You are a facilitator of neo nazis and other haters. You should be tried for being an accomplice to murder. You’re lucky shutting you down is all you get. A lot luckier than the 11 Jews in Pittsburgh were or the two African Americans murdered in Kentucky were. https://t.co/BjJyTbP4dC
— Howard Dean (@GovHowardDean) October 29, 2018
Dean was replying to a tweet from Gab that called on President Trump to "ACT" after the social media company said it had been "no-platformed" by online companies including Paypal and Stripe, two payment-processing platforms. Gab said it would be offline until it can transition to a new hosting provider.
Gab has been criticized for allowing right-wing extremists to use the website. The social media platform describes itself as the “The Home Of Free Speech Online."
Robert Bowers, the man charged in the shooting deaths of 11 people at Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life synagogue, wrote on his bio on the site that “jews are the children of satan.” His bio also included an image with the number 1488, a reference to Nazism, according to The New York Times.
In a statement Saturday following the shooting, Gab denied any responsibility for the shooting, saying that it has "zero tolerance" for terrorism and violence.
"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 said, adding that it has been “smeared by the mainstream media” for defending free speech.
 
Apr 18, 2018
7,775
12,386
555
USA
dunpachi.com
#98
You can start your own platform...

...but we won't register your domain.
...we won't route to your IPs.
...we won't allow financial transactions to your sites.
...we won't host you.

Internet needs to be broken up like Ma Bell. Citizens paid for the roads upon which their trucks drive. We paid for the incentives and breaks that many of these companies received to lay cable. Companies do not have unilateral authority to decide how the internet gets used.
 
Likes: Oner
Jan 7, 2018
2,193
885
320
#99


I can point out other things like James Woods getting banned for posting a meme, public threats against conservatives not "bannable", ban on Candace Owens, Owen Benjamin, ban on firearm content, Shadowbanning, mass bans on people who used NPC memes etc.

If you think Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and the like uphold their ever shapeshifting TOS equally... you sir are kidding yourself. This was talked about to the death already about social media moguls being authoritarian so much that them being a platform is being in question.

Now with that you can see why free speech platforms are on the rise.
https://apnews.com/17e25eda6a0243dcb6206e76cbe46d62
Twitter is apologizing for refusing to take down a threatening tweet that pipe bomb suspect Cesar Sayoc sent to a former Democratic congressional press secretary earlier this month.
The tweet that Rochelle Ritchie complained about said “hug your loved ones real close every time you leave home.” She got it after an appearance on Fox News, and complained.
Twitter responded on Oct. 11 that the tweet did not violate its rules against abusive behavior.
On Friday night, after Sayoc’s arrest for allegedly sending at least 13 mail bombs to prominent Democrats, Twitter issued a statement saying it had made a mistake.
It said it was “deeply sorry,” that the tweet clearly violated its rules and should have been removed.
The company had by then disabled Sayoc’s account.