Gab deplatformed

[Deleted]

Yes they are, they provided a safe haven for them.

As they do for communists and SJWs. So by that logic, are you going to claim that Gab is a communist website?

They are neutral in what view points they allow. Which in my book is infinitely better than selectively banning some bad ideas and leaving others to fester.

[szechuan]

As they do for communists and SJWs. So by that logic, are you going to claim that Gab is a communist website?

Doesn't matter as it was a Haven for Hate Speech as Well as Nazis.

They are neutral in what view points they allow.

No they weren't.

[Deleted]

Now you're dragging "fraud" into it for some reason. Stop it. There's no fraud at play here.

Really?

So you'd be okay with investing 1000$ in a company and then later finding out that company might be more committed to ideology than actually adding value to your investment?

If a traded company has a bias, they should disclose it to potential investors. Don't play with people's money for fuck's sake.

- - - Updated - - -

Doesn't matter as it was a Haven for Hate Speech as Well as Nazis.



No they weren't.

You claim they are not neutral.

Can you name one SJW that was ever banned from Gab for being an SJW?

[Adam Jensen]

Really?

So you'd be okay with investing 1000$ in a company and then later finding out that company might be more committed to ideology than actually adding value to your investment?

If a traded company has a bias, they should disclose it to potential investors. Don't play with people's money for fuck's sake.

Do the research first, then invest the $1000.

[Deleted]

Lolwut. Gab specifically catered to people with extreme rightwing sentiments. They effectively discouraged ANY left wing dialogue or even moderate centrist dialogue on their site.

Also, Alex Jones wasn't a Nazi. What he WAS was a conspiracy theorist who profited off of race baiting and actual no-shit libel/slander while actively calling for the harassment of parents whose children had been shot.

How?

Can you list SJW accounts banned from Gab for being SJW?

[szechuan]

You claim they are not neutral.

Because they aren't. ROFL.

Can you name one SJW that was ever banned from Gab for being an SJW?

What's your Obsession with SJW's?

- - - Updated - - -

Can you list SJW accounts banned from Gab for being SJW?

Again what's your obsession with SJW's?

[AeneasBK]

No worries calling people like you mentally ill for wanting society to accept you as something you will NEVER be. Will net me a ban here. So you won't see me for at least a month.

And nothing of value was lost.

[AeneasBK]

Hah! Jokes on him, I carry all my manliness in my spleen. No one would ever think to kick me there.

It's all about having good colon. Or do I mean cologne? I get so confused.

- - - Updated - - -

I wish I could just breathe fire on this entire thread to burn the mass stupidity away. This thread is a crime against humanity.

I know I've been a total dick to you in the past; I can't help being a dick sometimes; but genuinely miss you round these parts.

[Felnoire]

I can tell you why that's neither moral nor legal (and if there's some legal way to do it, there shouldn't be).

Paypal in particular is not just one guy, it's many different investors called shareholders. The company's board has a fiduciary duty to act in their interest, typically meaning to maximize profits.

So, no, they cannot simply ban 75% of their users for no good reason. If you want to be on the stock market, there are additional rules to follow, can't just trick people and the defraud them by willfully acting against their interest.

And there's no justification for fraud, even under a radical libertarian view.


Banning Alex Jones from this point of view was completely unsound financially.

A private sector business is given the same right to refuse service regardless of size, their ability to prove to their investors that by refusing service to x is in the company's best interests is a different matter entirely. Their fiduciary duty is to ensure they can return on the investors investment, and as long as they are able to do so the investors for the most part are not going to be too angered if they eject a customer.

So legally speaking as long as they return on the investment, and can prove they have not broken any laws involving discrimination that may affect them within the countries they operate within. Even a publicly traded business (which is still private sector) can stop providing a service to a customer. Though that's assuming the investors only care about their investment, as a controlling stakeholder could take exception to the decision and make things difficult for the business.

[Moralgy]

Really?

So you'd be okay with investing 1000$ in a company and then later finding out that company might be more committed to ideology than actually adding value to your investment?

If a traded company has a bias, they should disclose it to potential investors. Don't play with people's money for fuck's sake.

Most of the companies you are going to complain about have terms of service for a reason. Also, as someone else said, do your research before investing like a smart person should.

[Bakis]

This thread should be renamed: Grasping for straws

[Deleted]

Most of the companies you are going to complain about have terms of service for a reason. Also, as someone else said, do your research before investing like a smart person should.

Oh sure, while we're at it, we should also have to do our research on whether or not we'll get embezzled and whoever embezzles money shouldn't have to deal with any legal consequences.

That's just dumb. Whether we do our research right or not, it doesn't excuse malicious actors in upper management from acting in ways that harm company interests.

This is more or less what you guys would call victim blaming.

Do the research first, then invest the $1000.

You can research a lot of things, market conditions and future trends, you can look over the balance sheet etc.

You can't exactly research someone's brain. The idea that shareholders have to accept malicious actors in upper management doing malicious things with no legal recourse is fucking stupid. You wouldn't accept it if the CEO embezzled all the company's money. You wouldn't accept it if the company suddenly stopped publishing quarterly reports. Why would you accept it if the CEO maliciously starts making decisions that harm the company's profits so he can push a fucking ideology? That's not the purpose of corporations.

Nobody told people years ago that so many of these big tech companies listed on the stock market were run by ideologues that would become more and more militant over time and less focused on adding value to the investors.

Have many of them been profitable? Sure. Should they push ideology? No. They could be doing even better if they left this leftist nonsense behind.

[szechuan]

You can't exactly research someone's brain.

You're onto Something here, It's like Investing never has any Risk to it!

Nobody told people years ago that so many of these big tech companies listed on the stock market were run by ideologues that would become more and more militant over time and less focused on adding value to the investors.

"Militant" LOL.

Less Focused on adding Value? Are you saying there's Value in supporting extremist belief's?

Oh sure, while we're at it, we should also have to do our research on whether or not we'll get embezzled and whoever embezzles money shouldn't have to deal with any legal consequences.

LOL Trying to Equate Embezzling funds to Corporations who don't want to do Business with Companies that Support Extremist groups?

[Adam Jensen]

*shrug* Sorry if calling trannys mentally ill that are in the same category as pedos and schizophrenics offends you.

Who exactly are trannies hurting?

[BlueRemedy]

Lul, blubber more fuckheads

[nymphetsss]

Never heard of "gab" until today
Twitter and the like ( facebook, youtube) need more competition

[Deleted]

1) Traded companies have no legal obligation whatsoever to disclose a bias. The onus is on an investor to do their research before investing. Caveat emptor mate.

2) SJW's and moderates don't get banned from Gab because Gab was never set up to advertise to them in the first place. The people who inhabit Gab's community take it upon themselves to target the (very) few SJW's or normies who ever bothered posting there, often threatening and carrying out doxxing and other harassment campaigns against them.

SJWs also doxx and harass, nothing new here.

They could just as easily dominate Gab, Gan doesn't ban or shadowban or anything like that, but then again they can't even dominate YouTube where YT is actually biased against right-wingers in general.

- - - Updated - - -

You're onto Something here, It's like Investing never has any Risk to it!

Again, that's not an excuse for upper management to engage in evidently malicious behavior that harms company interest.

Lying to people to get their money is fraud.

[szechuan]

SJWs also doxx and harass, nothing new here.

Then Feel Free to report them.

Again, that's not an excuse for upper management to engage in evidently malicious behavior that harms company interest.

Lying to people to get their money is fraud.

Yet Donald Trump gets away with it everyday

they can't even dominate YouTube where YT is actually biased against right-wingers in general.

Is this why I constantly see DailyWire ads on youtube?

[Noxx79]

SJWs also doxx and harass, nothing new here.

They could just as easily dominate Gab, Gan doesn't ban or shadowban or anything like that, but then again they can't even dominate YouTube where YT is actually biased against right-wingers in general.

- - - Updated - - -



Again, that's not an excuse for upper management to engage in evidently malicious behavior that harms company interest.

Lying to people to get their money is fraud.

Careful, the liberals under your bed must give you an std.

[Deleted]

Degeneracy? Just treat people like people, fuck this paint all with one brush crap, the only reason people consider gender dymorphism, transexuality and such as not normal is because people have shallow views on normality.

On topic: still not sure why people call Gab itself alt right, gab as a platform was, until recently, pro free expression, until the lolicon ban. There’s a big difference between a platform being for a political alignment, and just allowing all, no matter how regressive, thoughts upon it.

Well, let's see.

Transexuals basically have the options of either:

1. living in the body they're not comfortable with and being miserable forever
2. undergoing a series of risky operations and treatments that lower their lifespan
(and about 50 years ago they basically had only option 1)

Which part of that is "normal?"

We're not shallow, we're realistic. And I feel sorry for these people.

Transexuality can be tolerated, but don't think for one second it is "normal".