Gab deplatformed

[Flarelaine]

That means Nazis and the Alt-Right better start the steppin' and hit the bricks.

You mean goose-steppin'?

[Skroe]

These rich entitled thin skinned little sub group of SJW are horrible shit.

REAL racist, real extremist : Lets push them to smaller and smaller platform. I am so scared, @jacK please, don't let them talk here.
Regular people with different opinion : CALL THEIR BOSS, I DOXX HIS OFFICE PHONE NUMBER, lets call the dude's boss and tell them alt right nazi gamer gate comics gate Misogynist should be eliminited.

Jesus Chirst.

I mean I'll just repeat myself.

This thread is a great example of how being able to use the N-word without consequence is just really, really important to some sad, sad, people.

- - - Updated - - -

You mean goose-steppin'?

I want the +1 this to the moon.

[szechuan]

Does it constitute an act of aggression or fraud? No, it doesn't.

If you think someone's ideas are "bigoted" and it really bothers you, then don't talk to them.

Your claim was that the Exchange of Ideas is the same as Hate Speech.

It isn't.

[Skroe]

As a side note, I feel like I'm being redundant when I say "Alt-Right and the Nazis".

The only difference between them is the cosplay.

[Deleted]

The First Amendment merely states "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech". Not a word in there about private entitites regulating use of their property.

It does become a bit more complicated if the companies in question use any form of subsidy.

Maybe government should stop giving any money to any corporations, but especially to those that create platforms where the free exchange of ideas is undermined.

[s_bushido]

note again for the slow (you know who you are.) I support gay marriage, gay rights et al.. It was just a comparison to draw upon.

"I support gay people, I just see no problem comparing them to mass murderers and literal Nazis."

Of course, your comparison is absolute shit because discriminating against someone purely for who they are isn't comparable in the slightest to discriminating against someone for what they do and say. Even bigoted garbage understand that, which is why they push so hard to declare that "being gay is a choice!"

[Deleted]

Your claim was that the Exchange of Ideas is the same as Hate Speech.

It isn't.

Hate speech is a leftist invention to label certain conservative viewpoints and make them appear untenable before they are even discussed.

The far left considers it "hate speech" to say "there is no third gender" and thinks you should be fined or in jail for simply stating this idea to whoever is willing to listen.

[szechuan]

the free exchange of ideas is undermined.

LOL, people didn't stop working with Gab because of the "Free Exchange of Ideas" you so desperately want to change.

[szechuan]

It would be like claiming you have free will because god says you do.

And plenty do, and plenty of people believe in that too.

What? Claiming that you can have complete freedom of speech does not also mean I want anarchy.

Your claim is that a Person has to be for Absolute Freedom of Speech or they aren't at all.

[XDurionX]

50 pages later, people still don't understand that this is not a matter of the first amendment. See you on page 100, folks.

[Skroe]

Considering, in one of my replies, I saod as mich that it is fine as long as web hosting is still a private endeavour. My entire argument has been that people claim to advocate freedom of speech, while also wishing to censor certain kinds of speech.

You're drawing a conclusion that is completely wrong. Saying that private entities have the right to kick off whoever they chose so long as it does not violate US law does not in some way imply censorship when it is applied against the alt right.

Once again, the KKK can lead a march down the National Mall. They have an absolute right to freedom of expression to do that, as offensive as it is. Open and shut. That right should never be infringined.

But applauding kicking the Alt-Right to the curb from private services isn't about censorship. It's about community standards in behavior.

The difference is the National Mall is a public commons and Facebook, Twitter and Paypal are not. And that distinction matters.

“Freedom only for the members of the government, only for the members of the Party — though they are quite numerous — is no freedom at all. Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters”

If you disagree, present how we can have freedom of expression with forms of censorship, and name me who you would personally allow to make the decisions on where those freedoms are to be cut off. As I have said before, this is from the argument of people who claim to be advocates of free speech, yet also attempt to curtail it. It’s not a far stretch of discussion with regards to the removal of what called itself a free speech platform (even if it wasn’t because it decided to ban loli pr0n).

Your understanding of censorship and freedom of expression wrongly conflates so many different ideas, I'm not sure where to begin. The key fallacy at hand here is you're portraying private communities deciding who will be included upon their membership - and that includes a private company deciding who to serve - as exactly the same as the state hypothetically practicing censorship in the public commons.

That is a dramatic redefinition of both what freedom of expression and freedom of speech is. Furthermore conflating public commons and private communities is extremely dangerous. Because that's one step away from the state being able to increasingly dictate how private entities handle their internal affairs, and that is not the role of the state beyond fundamental regulations, period. Freedom of Association also implies the freedom to disassociate from people. That is what is at hand here as well.

[Skroe]

50 pages later, people still don't understand that this is not a matter of the first amendment. See you on page 100, folks.

They don't care. As we've seen in this thread with some guy saying some nonsense how US law doesn't matter, this is far beyond the realm of real and in the realm of the fanciful.

Basically a handful of people want to feel like they achieved something here, when this issue is completely open and shut.

[Deleted]

Only if the government uses those subsidies to control the perfectly legal actions of the companies recieving them.

If the government funds an entity, then that entity should be bound by the same rules the government is, not hard to understand.

Why should the government spend money on a platform that practices censorship?

Of course, why should it spend money on any corporation at all? If your business cannot survive in the free market, it deserves to disappear so others can take its place and do better.

[Skroe]

If Gab were a company in his country it would already have been taken down, due to their laws regarding hate speech. He’s just talking out of his ass.

http://theconversation.com/explainer...practice-26105

Yep. And that's because your society has decided to regulate hate speech in a manner my society has not. This has a parallel in how libel lawsuits are extremely difficult to win in the US, but comparatively easy int he UK. Societies have different standards.

In the United States, the law has it regulated that services are generally not responsible for the content placed on them. So if someone post kiddie porn on facebook, for example, even if its only up for a minute, Facebook's board isn't suddenly legally liable, just the individual is. That applies to Gab too. For all we know, overnight it could become the definitive destination for people who really, really like board games, and not an alt-right hovel. The service is independent of the content. But many countries aren't like that.

[Deleted]

Only if the government uses those subsidies to control the perfectly legal actions of the companies recieving them.

Companies aren't forced to accept subsidies.

[Skroe]

Learn to read Skroe. I’m not in Australia. I’m an American. I was responding to the Australian.
.

I miss-read. A little rude though.

[szechuan]

You seem to think that because I have my own personal ethos that everyone must abide by it, yet I’ve only claimed that those who call themselves free speech advocates seem to fall apart when they realise you have to allow quite a lot of shit to be that way.

Because not Everybody is for Absolute freedom of Speech.

[szechuan]

And, as I have said -numerous- times, it is fine if you are not, just be honest that you are not an advocate of freedom of speech.

ROFL You can be an Advocate for Freedom of Speech and not Absolute Freedom of Speech.

Oh, and you can drop absolute, it is redundant since freedom already insinuates absolute

It Doesn't. Freedom itself is not Absolute.

[Irian]

Good. I hope facebook and twitter are next.

Social media sites are tearing apart our social sensibilities, especially ones as restrictive as Twitter for actually properly conveying messages. I hate to sound like an old hag who needs to get with the times (jesus christ I'm only 27) but I despise the effects social media is having on the world as a whole. I can see a slow but insidious change in culture that's only going to get more and more divisive and vile as long as these garbage sites are allowed to continue, especially in the US.

[Deleted]

ROFL You can be an Advocate for Freedom of Speech and not Absolute Freedom of Speech.

Translation: I need an excuse to put people in jail and/or fine them because they won't accept there's a third gender and won't stop talking about it.