Andrew Torba / Gab (Gab.com / Gab.ai) / Dissenter (dissenter.com) - An incompetent captain sinking millions of other people's dollars.

[AbraCadaver]

Just to be specific.

Deep web = basically shit that doesn't show up on search engines. Stuff in databases that can be searched and found, but isn't "out there." For instance, your local courthouse's recorder of deeds office. LexisNexis. Lists of prices on priceline. It's all data that's available on the web, but isn't on the surface.

Dark web = only accessible by some form of access that conceals the recipient and sender. TOR. Freenet. i2p. Other things that aren't publicly mentioned or known.

Nah, I think you’re wrong. I’m pretty sure it’s just a bunch of secret websites where you have to know the special hacker password, and once you get in it’s just a gif of a laughing skull and a bunch of ebay-like listings for drugs.

 

[cecograph]

On one hand, I think companies should have the right to deny service. But on the other hand, monopolies like Google and PayPal have made it so it’s pretty much impossible to get that particular service once they deny it to you. There’s no real alternative for PayPal, Twitter, and Facebook.

For social media, I'm still holding out hope for alternatives, right now particularly around the ActivityPub protocols pushed by the W3C, which Peertube has recently implemented.

There have been good points made in this thread that Gab had no killer feature: it was just a refuge for people who knew they would get kicked off other platforms, and that was a recipe for shit. But there is plenty you can do with an open generic protocol like ActivityPub far beyond what the existing social media platforms are offering.

When it comes to Paypal and finding alternatives to financial transaction gateways, we might just be fucked. That stuff is too deeply tied into the complexities of the state and the banking system, and we're not going to be able to untether until we solve the existing issues with cryptocurrencies. I'm not optimistic there.

 

[QI 541]

So can't banks and credit card companies just do the same thing and deny people services based on ideological reasons?

 

[Ghostse]

"Its bad for free speech that Gab.ai is being shut down"
and
"Torba is a fucking moron"

Are not mutually exclusive or contradictory thoughts.

Who would want to buy a spot on a site that seemingly spawned at least one mass shooter?

Facebook and Twitter are doing just fine.

Everyone sobbing about Gab being connected to the pittsburgh asshole seem to forget ISIS is operating on facebook and ethnosensitives aren't boycotting over the "Kill all White People" accounts.

 

[Lysol]

The actual answer imo isn't regulating twitter, facebook et al but making sure that payment processors aren't able to refuse service for ideological/non-illegal reasons.

 

[Strange Looking Dog]

also is it just me or are right-wingers the only ones who screech a lot about free speech like as if it was their long lost lord and savior?

This is just because the left has been getting complacent. A lot of them seem to have this weird belief in an ideological manifest destiny, and as such they don't feel the need to protect values like free speech that once protected them. People only protect free speech when they're the underdog; when they're leading it's just an inconvenience to their quest for ideological domination.

Make no mistake, once the right wing picks up some serious momentum they will start getting censorious, and the left will pick up the banner not only to protect themselves, but as a totem to rally around. And yet this too will be temporary

 

[Okubo Naoya]

Gab sent an email to all its users two hours ago. Here's the transcript, i hope i'm not late:

Spoiler: Gab's email

GAB
Gab.com’s policy on terrorism and violence have always been very clear: we a have zero tolerance for it. 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.

We refuse to be defined by the media’s narratives about Gab and our community. Gab’s mission is very simple: to defend free expression and individual liberty online for all people. Social media often brings out the best and the worst of humanity. From live streamed murders on Facebook, to threats of violence by bombing suspect Cesar Sayoc Jr. that went unaddressed by Twitter, and more. Criminals and criminal behavior exist on every social media platform.

Shortly after the attack, Gab was alerted to a user profile of the alleged Tree of Life Synagogue shooter. The account was verified and matched the name of the alleged shooter’s name, which was mentioned on police scanners. This person also had accounts on other social networks.

Gab took swift and proactive action to contact law enforcement immediately. We first backed up all user data from the account and then proceeded to suspend the account. We then contacted the FBI and made them aware of this account and the user data in our possession. We are ready and willing to work with law enforcement to see to it that justice is served.

We have nothing but love for all people and freedom. We have consistently disavowed all violence. Free speech is crucial for the prevention of violence. If people can not express themselves through words, they will do so through violence. No one wants that. No one.

Our user guidelines state:

Threats and Terrorism:
Users are prohibited from calling for the acts of violence against others, promoting or engaging in self-harm, and/or acts of cruelty, threatening language or behaviour that clearly, directly and incontrovertibly infringes on the safety of another user or individual(s). We may also report the user(s) to local and/or federal law enforcement, as per the advice of our legal counsel.

Our privacy agreement state:

Information Disclosed for Our Protection and the Protection of Others.
We cooperate with government and law enforcement officials or private parties to enforce and comply with the law. We may disclose any information about you to government or law enforcement officials or private parties as we, in our sole discretion, believe necessary or appropriate: (i) to respond to claims, legal process (including subpoenas); (ii) to protect our property, rights and safety and the property, rights and safety of a third party or the public in general; and (iii) to stop any activity that we consider illegal or legally actionable activity.

Thanks and remember to speak freely!

 

[Fork Cartel]

On one hand, I think companies should have the right to deny service. But on the other hand, monopolies like Google and PayPal have made it so it’s pretty much impossible to get that particular service once they deny it to you. There’s no real alternative for PayPal, Twitter, and Facebook.

[cut]

There is for the latter. Stop using privately-owned social media as a substitute for the public square. It’s a psychologically-harmful, culturally-corroding cancer that only ever existed so tech companies could skim off your personal information to whore out to other companies and nothing more.

 

[J A N D E K]

This site isn't even pretending to be a free speech platform. Its a site to make fun of exceptional people.

If you look at Null’s OP, that I quoted, you will see that he has free speech in quotation marks. The underpinnings of Kiwi Farms form a decent foundation for a “free speech” website. On the face of it, and its explicit intent, the site is for laughing at cows, but free speech hallmarks are there. Nothing is sacred here, subject-wise, and I don’t sense anyone ever feels the need to censor their opinions. There is a full spectrum of political affiliations here, however it does tend to skew right. Free speech will always be held in higher importance for those with more polarizing opinions. We all might not agree in discussions, but you can’t say people here are censored at all.

It's made pretty clear that you can be banned at a whim.

How often does this actually happen though? Bans seem to be meted out for breaking forum rules, not for the poster’s views. Free speech doesn’t free us from rules/law.

 

[awoo]

After all this discussion about advertising, why can't they live off donations like Stormfront?

I'm getting Clownflare errors from their end.

Much like a certain site...

 

[Richard Stabone]

Though both sides are kind of dumb for thinking that NN had much to do with censorship. It didn't, and it's a misrepresentation of the issue. By and large the real threat, IMO, with a lack of NN was (is?) cable companies, companies granted local monopolies by municipalities, putting forward their own streaming solutions or partnering with specific ones and throttling competitors to capture lost revenue from people cutting the cord. It had nothing to do with censorship, your images weren't going to load at dialup speeds, it had nothing to do with monthly fees, so on and so forth.

I agree with you. I'm just going by what they were saying. They wanted no government regulation of the internet and are now crying for it.

The issue online is with monopolies. But I still think that's a bit overblown. Google absolutely has a monopoly. They've abused it too (the FTC report from a few years ago is damning). The government should step in here because monopolies are bad for a capitalist system.

But there is no monopoly when it comes to web hosting. No monopoly when it comes to payment processing. If your product or service somehow alienates every single one of those companies, I don't know what can be done. Does he want the government to force a company to process transactions for him and host his stuff?

 

[Done]

Facebook and Twitter are doing just fine.

Everyone sobbing about Gab being connected to the pittsburgh asshole seem to forget ISIS is operating on facebook and ethnosensitives aren't boycotting over the "Kill all White People" accounts.

Two things to note here:

1) FB/Twitter is censoring those ISIS accounts as soon as they find them, so it's not like they're unjustly tolerated.
2) Percentages, stature and tenure matter: A shooter or an ISIS account being on Facebook isn't surprising or shocking, everyone is on there, and if anyone wants their ideas to propagate throughout society at-large, they will simply have to be there. That also makes the % of "undesirables" (for lack of a better word) much bigger on Gab than they are on FB/Twitter..etc.

Also keep in mind that I am not invested in the implication of this issue either way, it's just a small hobby of mine to pick apart failed businesses and ideas and see how they failed. No more, no less.

 

[Vehk]

Unless there is so much irony on top of irony that I have called completely lost the plot, I’ve seen a decent contingent of moderates here... myself included.

From what I've seen, KF definitely has a large contingent of the "I watch Metokur on the daily" people on the right who lead the discussion. You can dress it "irony" all you want, but it's clear that conservative cows get a much longer leash than left-leaning ones. Look at how many of the cow pages include something about them disliking/"raging" about Trump. Some of it is legitimately ridiculous, but a lot is "LOL what a libtard SJW" at statements about how shitty Trump is (which have been proven correct). TB's cowpage is a good example of this.

Make no mistake, once the right wing picks up some serious momentum they will start getting censorious, and the left will pick up the banner not only to protect themselves, but as a totem to rally around. And yet this too will be temporary

The right's done a great job of censoring minorities/college kids from voting.

Also, so far momentum on the right is generated by conspiracy theories, alt-right (the not racist kind ) millennials, and quasi anarcho-capitalists. So we'll have to see if they decide to return to normalcy after they lose Trump

 

[Krokodil Overdose]

No monopoly when it comes to payment processing. If your product or service somehow alienates every single one of those companies, I don't know what can be done. Does he want the government to force a company to process transactions for him and host his stuff?

Yes, if payment processors have formed a de facto cartel to restrain Gab's trade. Fashion Originator's Guild v FTC held that horizontal boycotts are illegal per se. This isn't actually a new issue under antitrust law.

 

[repentance]

also is it just me or are right-wingers the only ones who screech a lot about free speech like as if it was their long lost lord and savior?

That's only because a lot of social media users aren't old enough to remember when obscenity laws were used to ban open discussion of many of their favourite topics. They naively believe that restrictions on *their* free speech can never return, and it's simply not true.

Restrictions on anyone's free speech should terrify them, but they're determined to learn the hard way.

 

[eldri]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
This nigga thinks the government gives a shit about his speech and not their own.

 

[Cinderblock]

There is for the latter. Stop using privately-owned social media as a substitute for the public square. It’s a psychologically-harmful, culturally-corroding cancer that only ever existed so tech companies could skim off your personal information to whore out to other companies and nothing more.

This. If a political issue is such a big deal to a person, there are proper channels. He can voice his opinion with his vote, join a political party, go to meetings and activities IRL, start an insurrection if he thinks democracy is gay, etc...

I don't know how gab dying, or not using twitter will prevent people from IRL action of any kind.

 

[NOT Sword Fighter Super]

This will be interesting to watch unfold...

 

[Moseph Jartelli]

i mean technically lefties attack conservatives back on twitter/anywhere else so

also is it just me or are right-wingers the only ones who screech a lot about free speech like as if it was their long lost lord and savior?

(btw this is also my observation, so i could be wrong...)

When they arent screeching about muh gunz. Really, right wingers have only relatively recently started yelling about Free Screech

 

[Richard Stabone]

Yes, if payment processors have formed a de facto cartel to restrain Gab's trade. Fashion Originator's Guild v FTC held that horizontal boycotts are illegal per se. This isn't actually a new issue under antitrust law.

A cartel's purpose is to drive up the price and restrict competition. That's not what is taking place here. They are absolutely not acting as a cartel.

Gab is a high risk client and payment processors don't want to take on that liability or the public relations hit for such a tiny business. This isn't some giant conspiracy. It's just business.