Originally posted by Putinbot1
I heard rightist loons went over to it when Twitter regulated their bile. Twitter is pg 13 remember. I'd never use either.
I've seen straight up pronz posted to Twitter and stay that way for ages. How does it get a PG-13 rating?
Is it because no one reports that stuff so Twitter is blind to it? Or is it because Twitter doesn't care and only enforces on certain things that cross their bottom line?
Originally posted by dadudemon
Even you ban Hamas, that's anti-Islam or something...An interesting point about this, though: not even Sam Harris is on board with the progressives coddling Muslims and acting as liberal apologists for Muslims.
I'd laugh, it would be worth having them not get banned cuz it'd be admitting...yeah, their antics do in fact represent Islam and not radical Islam. That would make me chuckle and perhaps even whistle a jaunty tune.
It'd be like a conservative claiming twitter hates conservatives if they banned the KKK.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
A website meant to be a free speech alternative to twitter.Basically amidst a lot of these platforms' more recent tendencies towards censorship, and complaints about them on both free speech grounds and on the grounds of the censorship being executed with an obvious political violence.
People complained about this, and the response was "well just make your own platform." So Gab was created as a free speech platform where anyone can say or post anything as long as it doesn't violate the law. The idea was to create a space on the internet governed by the same free speech principles as the American public square, and as mentioned earlier it functions similarly to twitter in its structure, just without the censorship.
It's been repeatedly smeared as some alt-right/far right website... even though it's an open platform that doesn't express support for the alt-right or only allow the alt-right, but merely extends something of a universal free speech principle to anyone who uses it. The media has in large part attacked Gab because Gab doesn't employ the use of censorship as a tool for what the media consider their political agenda.
Well it turns out the recent synagogue shooter posted on Gab, and so attacks on Gab from the press have pressured the domain hosting them into deplatforming the website as a whole. Never mind the fact that the owner of Gab immediately took the initiative in going to the FBI to provide everything they had on the guy without being asked to do so. Never mind the fact that this guy had also posted shit on facebook and facebook is facing no repercussion or outrage for it.
There was also some outrage over the fact that the shooter was verified on Gab. Though the people complaining about it either don't understand or won't be honest about the fact that verified status on Gab doesn't work the same as verified status on Twitter. Rather than being a badge of honor or prestige like Twitter's blue checkmark, verification on Gab literally exists for the purpose of serving as evidence that the person whose posting under a name is actually that person, and all that's required to be verified is providing proof of identity, so anyone can do it. It's not some mark of endorsement or prestige or some shit, it's literally just verification that the person posting is the person who they claim to be.
Gab's account on medium also posted a statement on medium after the mass shooting happened, a statement which categorically condemned the mass shooting... and then medium decided to deplatform Gab's account and remove their statement. Far be it from me to understand why a denouncement of terrorism should be deplatformed... maybe Gab condemning terrorism and violence is not convenient to their narrative that Gab is evil?
Thus far it seems like Gab is under a coordinated attack, and have had to juggle the hosting of their website through Microsoft, Joylent, and Godaddy, all of which have deplatformed them. They have been banned from online monetary transactions by GoFundMe, Paypal, and Stripe. And they have been banned from Google and Apple's app stores.
Fundamentally they have come under multi-corporate assault for the moral crime of acting as a free speech platform operating under the same principles as the first amendment, with everything from their app sharing, financial transactions, website hosting, and a post condemning terrorism and violence having been revoked, banned, or deplatformed.
Thank you for this explanation.
This is what PayPal had to say:
"The company is diligent in performing reviews and taking account actions. When a site is explicitly allowing the perpetuation of hate, violence or discriminatory intolerance, we take immediate and decisive action." -PayPal
Now I'm just a "libcucktard leftist", but that sounds kind of reasonable from a company trying to protect itself from a PR shitshow that's directly linked to a mass murder. They didn't go "we're no longer allowing Gab to use our services because they're White people and we hate White people!", even though I thought that type of mentality was okay now, with a company having the right to do or not do business with anyone they want for any reason(s)?
Originally posted by Robtardyour anything but a cucktard Rob. Lib and leftist maybe, cucktard are the real rightist NPCs who regurgitate whatever trump and reddit tell them.
This is what PayPal had to say:"The company is diligent in performing reviews and taking account actions. When a site is explicitly allowing the perpetuation of hate, violence or discriminatory intolerance, we take immediate and decisive action." -PayPal
Now I'm just a "libcucktard leftist", but that sounds kind of reasonable from a company trying to protect itself from a PR shitshow that's directly linked to a mass murder. They didn't go "we're no longer allowing Gab to use our services because they're White people and we hate White people!", even though I thought that type of mentality was okay now, with a company having the right to do or not do business with anyone they want for any reason(s)?
Don't get me wrong, I've no real problem with Gab as it does have an equal playing field, eg an extreme "Leftist" could go on there and rant about punching Nazis and they'd allow that too. Just seems maybe like the Alt-Right flourish there.
But this mentality that there's some "Leftist" agenda here to squash Freedom of Speech is kind of silly. This is a public relations shitshow for any company involved. Jews being murdered by an Alt-Right Neo-Nazi, no one wants to be associated with that in any facet, so they're distancing themselves as quickly as possible.
Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]Most big Internet Corp type business are and always have been Very Left Leaning. [/B]
It's a necessity if you wish to conduct business because the left has made it their business to be the politically correct police. PR firms are all about being politically correct to have the highest probability of being seen in the highest light to shareholders and future shareholders to increase value and drive provide (those delicious dividends and massive M&A deals).
Therefore, large companies, due to Public Relations necessitating being politically correct, are inexorably left-leaning.
What happens to non-left leaning leaders in large coproations that take non-PC stances? Such as Chick-fil-a exec, who is a Christian and the company is a Christian company, making statements about LGBT stuff and it being a sin or Papa Johns dude saying stupid stuff?
Or Musk?
Odd how it is a circle of BS. Investors won't invest in companies that make bad PR booboos. Because...other investors won't invest in companies that make bad PR booboos. Which causes the stock prices to drop when people sell off their stock at lower and lower prices. That's circular as hell.
Originally posted by Robtard
This is what PayPal had to say:"The company is diligent in performing reviews and taking account actions. When a site is explicitly allowing the perpetuation of hate, violence or discriminatory intolerance, we take immediate and decisive action." -PayPal
Now I'm just a "libcucktard leftist", but that sounds kind of reasonable from a company trying to protect itself from a PR shitshow that's directly linked to a mass murder. They didn't go "we're no longer allowing Gab to use our services because they're White people and we hate White people!", even though I thought that type of mentality was okay now, with a company having the right to do or not do business with anyone they want for any reason(s)?
You are indeed a cuck yeah. Gab isn't responsible at all for what happened. No you didn't say they were, yet it needs to be said.
And given how many people use social media these days yep stuff like this is going to happen on any platform that truly allows free speech.
And for someone who just earlier whined about supposedly being strawmanned...I never said his banning had anything to do with race.
Originally posted by Surtur
You are indeed a cuck yeah. Gab isn't responsible at all for what happened. No you didn't say they were, yet it needs to be said.And given how many people use social media these days yep stuff like this is going to happen on any platform that truly allows free speech.
And for someone who just earlier whined about supposedly being strawmanned...I never said his banning had anything to do with race.
Rough weekend again, eh.
Okay? Your point in how this relates to private companies protecting themselves form a PR nightmare? Or even the "der Leftist are coming!" narrative you were implying before?
Oh my, that was just an example of PayPal dropping service for an unreasonable reason, compared to the reasonable one they said, it had nothing to do with you. So you're once again pretending to be the victim, when there wasn't even an attack in the first place.
Originally posted by Robtard
Okay? Your point in how this relates to private companies protecting themselves form a PR nightmare? Or even the "der Leftist are coming!" narrative you were implying before?
The point was that when censorship on twitter is brought up "make your own platform" is brought up as an alternative. You yourself even suggested an "alt right" twitter. This was a place that tolerated any speech, even from the alt right. We're seeing why it might not be so easy to just go create your own censorship free platform and have it actually last.
Oh my, that was just an example of PayPal dropping service for an unreasonable reason, compared to the reasonable one they said, it had nothing to do with you. So you're once again pretending to be the victim, when there wasn't even an attack in the first place.
Okay Rob, you have a tendency to strawman...but sure.
Originally posted by Surtur
The point was that when censorship on twitter is brought up "make your own platform" is brought up as an alternative. You yourself even suggested an "alt right" twitter. This was a place that tolerated any speech, even from the alt right. We're seeing why it might not be so easy to just go create your own censorship free platform and have it actually last.Okay Rob, you have a tendency to strawman...but sure.
Gab can very likely find another platform to run on, probably a Russian company. They'll be back up in no time I'd reckon. For an ePayment platform, there are plenty others.
But what happened to the 'a company can choose to not do business with anyone for any reason' mantra that was so dominant not so long ago?
Originally posted by Robtard
Gab can very likely find another platform to run on, probably a Russian company. They'll be back up in no time I'd reckon. For an ePayment platform, there are plenty others.But what happened to the 'a company can choose to not do business with anyone for any reason' mantra that was so dominant not so long ago?
Rob they did find another place to host it. And then that place dropped them lol.
And I feel it's messed up, but PayPal has the right to do it. The point was less about their right or even them specifically, it was about how it's just not so easy to just create and maintain another platform that won't censor.
Your point wasn't "the Left hates freedom of speech!" again then? Okay, guess I misread you.
My point was that a company like PayPal backing away isn't a Left or Right thing, it's a money/profits thing. A "Leftist" or "Rightest" could both attack PayPal (or other) as being anti-Semitic if they chose to spin it that way in regards to Gab. PayPal is being proactive in the face of a PR nightmare and joining in. Now this probably wouldn't have happened if only one company severed ties with Gab, but two becomes three and then the deluge happens as with most things.