I don't know if anyone here uses Gab, but if you do: Apparently Gab is going to be down for a while.
I don't know if anyone here uses Gab, but if you do: Apparently Gab is going to be down for a while. Sounds like one of their users may have been involved in something infamous.
I have (or at least had) a Gab account, but haven't used it in a really long time.
https://twitter.com/getongab/status/1056362626077220865
I have (or at least had) a Gab account, but haven't used it in a really long time.
https://twitter.com/getongab/status/1056362626077220865
"Infamous" is an interesting term for it.
ReplyDeleteJeremy Albright I was guessing. But I just read the thread, and apparently the guy who is suspected of doing the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting wrote anti-semitic stuff on Gab.
ReplyDeleteInteresting (and a bit disturbing) that they were shut down so quickly for the actions of one man.
Registered a few weeks back on Gab.
ReplyDeleteImmediately saw a proud post by the CEO (or boss?), that Breibart had ranked them #1 most reliable social medium for them.
It was followed by a rant against "mainstream media", including Twitter and (?) Reddit or Instagram, that had banned them, causing the creation of Gab in the first place.
That link is quite funny, indeed!
Complaining of "White persecution", and accusing Facebook and Twitter of organising antifa and ISIS!
Gab ends on a kiss ass note:
God bless you all and God bless the families, friends, law enforcement, and emergency response teams who have endured this horrible tragedy.
Pray for unity and peace.
Christian Nalletamby I hadn't seen that note! It does seem a bit...narrow.
ReplyDeleteI thought I was being too harsh on that place so I decided to go for another try. And the first thing I see on their page is some spiel about Jewish conspiracies and white supremacist trash posts. And that was five minutes ago. Nope Nope NOPE! Not touching that site with a 100 foot pole.
ReplyDeleterawstory.com - Alt-right social media site Gab in meltdown mode after Pittsburgh shooting -- begs Donald Trump to 'ACT!'
ReplyDeleteOn one hand if you refuse an open platform to the wackos you cannot monitor what they are saying and you force them out of public view. This makes law enforcement harder.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, refusing a platform makes it harder for wackos to find each other, develop adoring audiences, and allowing them to believe that their ideas have merit.
However, what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Twitter ignored reports of threatening comments by the Florida mail bomber. Shouldn’t they face some consequences?
nonie maylle Is it working again?
ReplyDeleteCould not join earlier.
Oh, that's good to hear, when gab.ai is down. Only right wing idiots went there, so, if that site is gone, it's a win for everyone.
ReplyDeletegab.ai - gab | The Free Speech Social Network
I have a couple of IDs there, not used in some time. "Liberals" suppressing free speech again?
ReplyDeleteWow. I hadn't heard of Gab until just last night, when my wingnut brother told me about it. He didn't seem aware of this news, though.
ReplyDeleteIt's worrying if rightwingnuts gather together on certain sites, creating 'their own world' with their own set of values, creating consensus about what is 'right' and what is 'true' etc, then they could disassociate from the reality of the wider world and commit atrocities fully believing they are doing 'the right thing' and when you have a president like Trump who seems to be encouraging and rubber stamping rightwing violence then things will get out of hand . . .
ReplyDeleteNishit Dave some think 'free speech' is an absolute but it isn't - you have to accept limitations. Also remember that any so-called 'rights' to free speech are not applicable to the internet, also that such 'rights' are not actually rights at all, they are privileges aquired at the expense of other less powerful social groups
ReplyDeleteMartha Magenta one side cannot have overwhelming say in what constitutes "right" speech. It's a race to the bottom.
ReplyDeleteWell Mr Free Speech, we are not allowed to discuss politics in this community (which seems to be run by Libertarians) and since I have broken that rule already, I shall probably be banned. Maybe you too, maybe not, depending on the value of your free speech.
ReplyDeleteAlexander Skwar
ReplyDeleteOh, that's good to hear, when xyz.cb is down. Only left wing idiots went there, so, if that site is gone, it's a win for everyone.
Yeah, I agree.
Point worth noting that activities of others may impact on you in more ways than one.
ReplyDeleteWho and what money is behind each social network or website matters because it impacts how the network will be run. Social media is about the people not so much the technology.
ReplyDeleteShelenn Ayres Yes, it's like other types of media, news media and whom they belong to sets the political tone and aims.
ReplyDeleteMudhooks RawStory itself isn't a great source, FYI.
ReplyDeletehttps://mediabiasfactcheck.com/rawstory/
Shelenn Ayres Thayt's among the elements I'm looking at capturing for #PLExodusWiki.
ReplyDeletesocial.antefriguserat.de - Platforms and Sites - PlexodusWiki
(A bit of a mess presently.)
Edward Morbius social media can fire up passions and build extremist divisions it says, and so can presidents, e.g. it is no coincidence, the extremist and divisive language of Trump - the world will be blaming him right now. Is it the sites/media or the leadership?
ReplyDeleteEdward Morbius That particular story is sourced through Reuters from their attribution.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.reuters.com/article/us-pennsylvania-shooting-gab/what-is-gab-the-site-used-by-pittsburgh-synagogue-shooting-suspect-idUSKCN1N10US
Martha Magenta The question of the hour.
ReplyDeleteMy view; systems change behaviours of nodes/elements within them.
Martha Magenta Very good question! Does it have to be either/or? I think that it's a combination of the two, with the seasoning of our current technology thrown in the exacerbate the effects of it.
ReplyDeleteChuck Dee free speech is equated with the right to commit mass murder it seems
ReplyDeleteChuck Dee See Elizabeth Eisenstein, The Printing Press as an Agent of Change (1979)
ReplyDeletehttps://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/227682?journalCode=ajs
http://courses.unt.edu/rdecarvalho/h5040/StudentPapers/Eisenstein04,Elizabeth.htm
https://www.worldcat.org/title/printing-press-as-an-agent-of-change-communications-and-cultural-transformations-in-early-modern-europe-volumes-i-and-ii/oclc/838139921
worldcat.org - The printing press as an agent of change communications and cultural transformations in early-modern Europe ; volumes I and II (Book, 2009) [WorldCat.org]
Chuck Dee Reuters would be the preferred source then.
ReplyDeleteRawstory isn't (always) wrong. They're almost always inflammatory.
Chuck Dee It's cart and pony - but who is in charge, is Trump in charge or not?
ReplyDeleteMartha Magenta Very torubling in that view. Especially because it conflates the term with real abuses of the right. Just like the current sentiment toawrds guns; there's a real reason for the 2nd amendment, and it isnt what people are touting it as currently. Just like Free Speech isn't really free, the right to bear arms isn't either. Both must be moderated with responsibility for that right, and exist to keep tyrannical governments in check. This is not that.
ReplyDeleteEdward Morbius Not in this case is what I wanted to point out. Pointing out that they are not the best source is disingenuous on a story sourced from Reuters at best, I'd think. Conversation should be focused on the message, not distractions about the messenger when they are not the source and attribute it as such.
ReplyDeleteMartha Magenta Another good question, and I don't think that it's a question of being in charge with things like this. Attitudes don't have to do with his power on things like this. Just his influence. Peopple with all views exist and have existed; you can't legislate views. Some are just emboldened by him. The theory that seeing someone like yourself helps to open possibilities does not like most things only apply in singular cases. Just like a Black President is a role model for the feeling of Black empowerment, the existence of Trump is a role model for empowerment of certain groups also, IMO. It's and interesting thing to see, anthropologically.
ReplyDeleteChuck Dee Trump is blaming the victims for not being armed! Huge profits are made through the arms industry, which indicates that the USA is heavily dependent on death and killing. Which begs the question:
ReplyDeleteWho decides what is free speech?
plus.google.com - We should be keeping an eye on what’s going on with Gab. Just like MeWe ‘the...
ReplyDeleteMartha Magenta the question is not “who decides what is free speech?” That’s a loosing proposition. We all know what “free” means and “speech” means. The questions are:
ReplyDeleteWhat limits must be imposed on free speech?
What are the responsibilities of the social media companies on imposing those limits?
What are the consequences on imposing those limits?
But “who” is easy. Society does. Each one of us, including company leaders, is a constituent of society. Sometimes society is represented by governments, sometimes by commercial success.
Commercial interests are part of society. If your social media company is not imposing limits that accord with my revenue model, I have the right to stop providing services to you.
If no one is providing services to a social media company, society has overwhelmingly voted that their limits were too lax.
Martha Magenta I think that Edgar Brown has the right of it. And the thing about Trump is that it's not his power that's speaking right there, it's his platform. His power is in the legislation of such, and in all reality, it's just business as usual in those categories. All of this has been possible before Trump, just not permissible. With him promoting an example of it being so, others like him are coming out of the woodwork.
ReplyDeleteUpdate: Though there is an element of power, thinking about it. Twitter would probably suspend anyone else in that position. They have said that they will not suspend the President, just because of his position.
Note to self: I should have realized that politics would come up on this one. Next time, disable comments but include a link to a second copy of the post elsewhere, and allow comments on that copy.
ReplyDeleteEdgar Brown You say 'we all know what free speech is' but that is clearly not the case. I quote a friendly american who has studied the Constitution, who claims that the Constitution has built in limitations to free speech where it would impede the life of liberty of others:
ReplyDelete"...This is another limit on free speech built in to The Constitution. It seems to me that the people muddying the issue and trying to turn simple topics into rocket science couldn't define rocket science, couldn't do the math required, and probably couldn't spell it correctly with three tries and spell check. What these microminds are doing on Gab is more akin to seditious behavior than some patriotic use of free speech. But that's just my long winded impression of it."
Chuck Dee My working definition of media for some time has been "intermediate agency". Meant in its broadest possible sense.
ReplyDeleteMedia intermediates. The space between us with light, air and sound. Books, writers, editors.
Not all intermediation is bad, but less is frequently better.
RS did not simply reprint the Reuters account, they spun it. In a way the site frequently does, enough so that Media Bias Fact Check note it. (The site reports on many sources, left, right, center, and elsewhere, I've found it useful and generally reliable.) A known-overtly-biased-source where others are readily found is not preferred.
Reuters is a highly centrest, generally non-spun source. (It has more nuanced biases, mostly Overton-window and Establishment related, these are minor relative to RS.) It's also the primary (hence preferred) source, and RS adds little to the factual basis, other than noting the RWmedia's knot-twisting. If that is what you're looking for, there are still likely betteer sources.
This discussion is tedious and your argument tendentious.
Peter Maranci I know we are breaking the rules because free speech does not apply to online communities, however much some say they do, they do not.
ReplyDeleteOkay, I have created another copy of this post in my own public area. If people have to argue politics, please do it over there instead of in this community.
ReplyDeleteif I disable comments on this post now, will all the comments that are already here disappear? Does anyone know?
plus.google.com - I don't know if anyone here uses Gab, but if you do: Apparently Gab is going ...
Peter Maranci NB, the discussion re; speech, rights, consequences, and bias strikes me as on point. I'll check with other mods.
ReplyDeleteTo the extent political grandstanding can be kept to a minor rumble, I'm OK with this.
Martha Magenta “imposing a limit on free speech” is not the same as “defining what free speech is “.
ReplyDeleteThat quote is on the constitution (a legal social construct) imposing a limit on free speech.
That is just common sense.
Don’t confuse common sense with legalese. It is like claiming that atheism is actually a religion because the legalese requires it to be so.
The exisiting comments will remain, however as the OP you can remove any comments you do not want.
ReplyDeleteEdgar Brown the question was not what is free speech, but who gets to decide who has free speech?
ReplyDeleteMartha Magenta NB, not sure if you're referencing G+MM rule, but as a mod, I'm good with this discussion, have justed posted that in our back-channel, and there's no statement othewise that I'm aware.
ReplyDeleteKeep talking, be respectful and reasonably fact-based, minimise overt politics (tough in this topic, I'm aware).
I'm doing a test over on my own...um...G+ to confirm that comments won't be deleted once I freeze the post.
ReplyDeletehttps://plus.google.com/+PeterMaranci/posts/KTd8GuWdfQK
Martha Magenta who gets to decide who has free speech?
ReplyDeleteThose who control venues, directly, courts, ultimately, via legal interpretation and judgement. It's actually a fairly uninteresting question, generally expressed as a conversation stopper.
How and where boundaries are enforced or set is far more intereesting, IMO.
Edward Morbius I think the logical step there is those who advocate genocide, killing and silencing those they don't like, are answering that question and we are letting them. Wrong in terms of the Constitution which does not endorse free speech which denies life and liberty to others.
ReplyDeleteEdward Morbius Interesting expansion of my vocabulary with tendentious! I certainly didn't intend that it be so- though the spin of the article might be questionable (I didn't see where it had been spun on casual reading), the facts that it expressed were still on point, which only would seem to mean that bias was in the reporting, not the facts.
ReplyDeleteWould you agree with that assessment?
Martha Magenta Actionable threats and intimidation are generally either not protected speech, or are subject to other sanctions.
ReplyDeleteConsider too:
1. We're looking at alternative platforms. Policies, community, cultures, practices, history, and controversies should be part of that comparison.
2. Self-hosting, both individually and of groups, is being considered by many. What responsibilities and liabilities does that incur.
3. Many Terms of Service specifically prohibit any violation of law. Note that this is prescriptively stated, may be interpreted as cross-jurisdictional, and does not specify trial-based determination. Admin/owner say-so, in other words.
In part, that's legal boilerplate to protect hosts, hosting services, connectivity providers, etc. against their own liabilities, though this can also seve as thin pretext to remove any potentially problematic, embarrassing, or inconvenient content. Actual invocation may vary greatly.
Peter Maranci Please don't disable comments.
ReplyDeleteMartha Magenta Just for a Devil's Advocate stance, would speech itself deny life? Where is the line drawn for being a provocateur? I've found that some speech is distasteful and not in line with my own thinking. But finding that line between being not in line with my own and advocating for action is a line that I sometimes find hard to draw- and I think many of us suffer from the same problem- especially in these times.
ReplyDeleteEdward Morbius Okay, I won't.
ReplyDeleteChuck Dee It's a fun word.
ReplyDeleteFYI, views on RS and sourcing generally are mine personally, not Community policy, though I might weight them in acting on a post asa mod. I'm not usually wearing my mod hat if I don't specifically tag a comment. (I try to remembe both to do that and what hat(s) I'm wearing.)
Chuck Dee There is something seriously wrong if people cannot draw that line of limitations. Some of these right wing groups threaten genocide and at least they encourage people to get together and physically attack others. It really isn't about being distasteful.
ReplyDeletePeter Maranci Thanks!
ReplyDeleteMartha Magenta I think that certain applications are very much self-evident in what they contain. But others... I'm not so sure. And I think that particular doubt in and of itself is healthy. If you're sure on everything, then you leave yourself open to being wrong on some things. Certainty is a very slippery slope at times, I find.
ReplyDeleteGab tried to disguise its true purpose of being a platform for hate speech and right-wing radicalization by proclaiming it was simply supporting "free speech". It was always just a wink wink kind of thing. I recall a shadow background image of pepe-the-nazi frog on their sign-up page when it first kicked off and was still limiting registrations. That kind of said it all.
ReplyDeleteEither it already violated the hosters terms and conditions and they ignored it until now, or it didn't and they suddenly changed their rules. Neither makes the hosting company look good
ReplyDeleteMartha Magenta everyone has free speech. You have the right to step on a soap box in the middle of a square and say or do anything you want. Society, as part of its own free speech, has the right to: (1) pelt you with tomatoes, tar and feather you, and linch you (2) ignore you, or (3) provide you with a megaphone, a radio and TV station, and declare you its god
ReplyDeleteWe, as society, consider that linchings are not an acceptable form of speech and we put people in jail for it. That is a limit on societal free speech rights.
But likewise, you don’t have a right for society to provide you with a megaphone and name you its god.
Martha Magenta the line is never obvious. As I pointed out in my first comment, this is an ethics problem which never have black and white solutions.
ReplyDeleteOn one hand, providing a platform provides a means for bad ideas to multiply, reproduce, and infect our society.
On the other hand, bringing bad ideas to light allows for the public discourse to act as a disinfectant, and to spot the trouble spots.
Stay on target, keep politics out of this thread please.
ReplyDeleteEdgar Brown In theory, but in practice, nothing stopped the Pittsburgh massacre
ReplyDeleteEdgar Brown (1) is not a right of this society. Any of those responses in (1) would be assault.
ReplyDeleteMartha Magenta and Gab (the company, the community, and its members) is, at the very least, partially to blame for that.
ReplyDeleteIt did nothing to illuminate the hate speech in their site and report it to the relevant authorities.
That is precisely why society is now punishing them.
Chuck Dee someone’s “assault” is someone else’s “free speech”. Even lynching was an acceptable form of “speech” in the US not that very long ago. We, in modern society, know better.
ReplyDeleteThat’s why distributed p2p is the only solution to the social media. P2P network cannot be shutdown that easily.
ReplyDeleteEdgar Brown Assault is specifically unprotected speech. People may claim any number of things. Finding specific legal basis for those claims (as is relevant in this case), or other factual basis (in other domains), is another matter entirely.
ReplyDeleteAs such, your comment above does nothing to advance the discussion. Other than noting changing norms.
We're operating in the world of 2018, largely under US/EU and Indian law (based on G+ usage demographics and geographic distribution). Very few of us operate under US Reconstruction or Jim Crow time-period jurisdictions, timelords potentially excepted.
Edward Morbius “toy problems” (a.k.a., philosophical monsters) is what I call taking arguments to the extremes of their slippery slopes. This is always useful to illuminate areas that might not be so clear to the audience. My choice of assault as “speech” in the above comment was very intentional in that regard.
ReplyDeleteMy reply to you clearly serves to advance the discussion, as it illustrates that what we today still consider “free speech” and a right, tomorrow might be considered “assault” and illegal. And that is precisely the point of this discussion.
In the US being a Nazi is protected under free speech, in Germany it is illegal. In the west being an Atheist and expressing it aloud is perfectly ok, in some countries it carries the death penalty. Societies make choices, those choices evolve.
The choices we make today will determine the limits of free speech of tomorrow. Gab is facing those choices, it will probably end up moving its domain and hosting to Russian servers and only accept payments in Bitcoin.
Please be careful how this thread continues. It's not in what I would call the realm of pure "politics" yet, but I feel it edging that way and I'll ask the OP to moderate the comments or perhaps freeze them at this point if they feel the thread might go that direction. We have been increasingly vigilant of political posts particularly since the US is about to have mid-term elections. Political posts get deleted.
ReplyDeleteEdgar Brown We're talking about current affairs, not abstract generalities, which is why I said in the post, "a right of this society". Currently, as it stands, those forms of expression would be considered assault.
ReplyDeleteIn actual fact, it was the same then- it was just not universally applied as such. Assault is assault- especially in physical expression of such- no matter if it was tacitly accepted, it was still assault and not 'Free Speech'.
Chuck Dee “Free Speech” is an abstract generality. That is an intrinsic and mostly inscrutable part of the problem.
ReplyDeleteEdgar Brown Physical assault is not speech.
ReplyDeleteTo me, the problem is that when any entity has the power to classify particular categories of speech as being the equivalent of action, and therefore bans that speech, it's only a matter of time before that power will be abused.
ReplyDeleteIt's a complicated issue.
Thank you for keeping this discussion open. It's an important one, and I'm learning things as I read that will become an important part of my own decision on out-migrating from the Plus. Appreciate all the contributions, pro and con.
ReplyDeleteA social network site is kind of like a block of flats. Would you feel comfortable living in a block of flats with one, perhaps two Nazis in it? This sort of thing is a standard facet of urban living. On properly designed social networks, you can block the lonely Nazi when he bothers you too much. What about living in a block of flats where almost everybody is a Nazi? If you're not one, and don't plan to join their 1000-year party, you'd probably move out very fast.
ReplyDeleteSo, it matters whether most people on gab.ai -- or any alternative of it one might consider moving to -- are Nazis.
Andres Soolo people didn't move out of Nazi Germany fast enough and ended up being transported to gas chambers. Have people learned nothing. The intent to allow free speech to Nazis is either calculating (rightwingnuts) or naive (under-educated folks)
ReplyDeleteTwitter and FB, and probably all the others, are full of people making violent threats, calling for assassinations, making racist remarks, and no one seems to mind. Perhaps because they're left?
ReplyDeleteGab, unlike Twitter and any of the others, cooperated with the FBI when they found out about the guy and gave them his data.
Yeah, let's see twitter do that next time someone calls for Trump's ... well, you figure it out.
Gab's hosting service should have given them a free upgrade for acting correctly.
Greg Mee no because they do their own hosting and are big enough.
ReplyDeleteGreg Mee Any specific information on Gab's response? Citation or URL? Thanks.
ReplyDeleteI think it's safe to say that if the shooter in question had been on Facebook or Twitter, those services would not have been forced offline. This is a matter of a relatively small service being at the mercy of larger players. Which is indeed a concern when it comes to considering new online homes for the Exodus.
ReplyDeleteSmall services can be "disappeared" almost instantly, without appeal. Their users will suffer the same fate, at least as far as their content there is concerned.
That's a point in favor of decentralized social media. Or a service with a major company or government behind it.
Peter Maranci Individual small service providers (personal hosts, small-group hosts) can also likely be forced offline.
ReplyDeleteWith a sufficiently decentralised protocol and profile mobility, that's a minor inconvenience.
For either the white hats unfairly targeted, or the black hats evading justice.
(Hat colour may not be immediately apparent and/or universally recognised.)
Peter Maranci right. The only trustworthy solution should be open source so we can modify “the app” behaviour if needed and p2p or federated so we own our data.
ReplyDeleteEdward Morbius "Any specific information on Gab's response?"
ReplyDeleteHow about CNN?
cnn.com - Robert Bowers: What we know so far about the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting suspect - CNN
Peter Maranci Facebook and Twitter use their own servers. The ISP took them offline. That's a large difference. When you are dependent on other players, you put yourself at their mercy.
ReplyDeleteChuck Dee Rumor has it that Gab has now found new hosting.
ReplyDeleteGreg Mee Which has no bearing on the point that I was replying to.
ReplyDeleteGreg Mee: But your source is not CNN but Gab itself; CNN is merely reporting on what Gab said about FBI. There's no independent corroboration.
ReplyDeleteAndres Soolo In theory, GAB was still hosted until 9AM (no idea which timezone), but it's already off with this message, no other page seems reachable.
ReplyDeletehttps://lh3.googleusercontent.com/4_ImrLRsgq7D8CJNgk6jdHpfKfi7tuQLMQSbFYGt17efSVJFFs96NxUvRs7igRggnpcoq6ZCj-FgL5-QCN67eV1B_D300UEUpFaC=s0
Andres Soolo In theory, GAB was still hosted until 9AM (no idea which timezone), but it's already off with this message, no other page seems reachable.
ReplyDeletehttps://lh3.googleusercontent.com/0cW2zBW8g0jqna_6NxX_61_NnipTt5uAo4Te9hPDyyoQSueJr_2a2g3uNJ7heCVVF_SGCacfqGACzpApoyRv1UanMaE4t688eJgg=s0
Andres Soolo In theory, GAB was still hosted until 9AM (no idea which timezone), but it's already off with this message, no other page seems reachable.
ReplyDeletehttps://lh3.googleusercontent.com/SWe_0-ydVtloFtsvTFUKHxt546ew30pyDn9sM5VbLQrZ2EqBXUFoNyZ5avpu-IEfAy2pppuvD5GosVnc8KPBnkbFSKZl8G7sopRJ=s0
Andres Soolo In theory, GAB was still hosted until 9AM (no idea which timezone), but it's already off with this message, no other page seems reachable.
ReplyDeletehttps://lh3.googleusercontent.com/m9quMWXdm3s-47vngnAYcD-UAN6t0wTqSbrTkbyzLkXmJ8mQlDUwnE7M8ChhFeebCp1XZjJqNETKeh6yinSqPfUvv0YKQdzourWh=s0
Andres Soolo In theory, GAB was still hosted until 9AM (no idea which timezone), but it's already off with this message, no other page seems reachable.
ReplyDeletehttps://lh3.googleusercontent.com/ddwFrHlRea5MU81O1oYMil64YbLrYlABGq8X6kjTpe8Aq7ymqmwoZ2QaIOmI6Qzn_xIiVusAV0MnpEdHyvFXVRvqrCMu2G1wIn8r=s0
Andres Soolo In theory, GAB was still hosted until 9AM (no idea which timezone), but it's already off with this message, no other page seems reachable.
ReplyDeletehttps://lh3.googleusercontent.com/xxy9g6-RWk0Qbc5KettlWhX8_0BNmpaIOlJMq5wKQGybRUiT1anwMJH39md1F0iyJCRpO11JzMHiiTLng_PTqI2sKqXdv-WrO7h3=s0
Andres Soolo In theory, GAB was still hosted until 9AM (no idea which timezone), but it's already off with this message, no other page seems reachable.
ReplyDeletehttps://lh3.googleusercontent.com/J8zrHW0nOq_XsIgv1Vl145pS_CFh-tsKSGMn5pc5HmKlrYhPgUx0mb4DpZIekPV98h3n29AjHfHgS5MAdleHMr0I2KABkPSo4ybQ=s0
Andres Soolo In theory, GAB was still hosted until 9AM (no idea which timezone), but it's already off with this message, no other page seems reachable.
ReplyDeletehttps://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Tph-i9lVy1n980CB8bJM6UtazpvYD3xEzidO1sc79CAQoMISJ-f6p84uOXLDnEoAQuArgMMM5_bFVNCnKfjhb8xUgefVNjhaRSNe=s0
Andres Soolo In theory, GAB was still hosted until 9AM (no idea which timezone), but it's already off with this message, no other page seems reachable.
ReplyDeletehttps://lh3.googleusercontent.com/XxAYA4dwIAou7qpi-x4zgT5xL2QdMhvUtPOQvnqwJCgU3VbxN3mrqZSAl9EQREl1zBKR8AmQ8q9EAo4-Hr8-dZ5baGlrsHM5JQkw=s0
Andres Soolo In theory, GAB was still hosted until 9AM (no idea which timezone), but it's already off with this message, no other page seems reachable.
ReplyDeletehttps://lh3.googleusercontent.com/htF2KqC7WLf9ytallF7zQYf8QicIc99uprqP1GKjhqmgWbjLNSkTNCVC0DtVj0mAUnJfJ0_8EIBIxWU9ULEbRC7te4686Vd-taMS=s0
Andres Soolo In theory, GAB was still hosted until 9AM (no idea which timezone), but it's already off with this message, no other page seems reachable.
ReplyDeletehttps://lh3.googleusercontent.com/yFP9mVAd_qEOgaoOjAfLDXF_f0lchVJAs3_nPMIy3Q-4-9jpWtq_VEwuuLfhaF_PDAa-pTBEWyw9f5MMdaB2SwpKu3B-LNV3xfDe=s0
Andres Soolo In theory, GAB was still hosted until 9AM (no idea which timezone), but it's already off with this message, no other page seems reachable.
ReplyDeletehttps://lh3.googleusercontent.com/sp9fTUKS_ST0jBYHKB8LeCUt-qzqfpz0ENzNOGy5xalP2t46BCYdxdPaBU9K5lutdFbtQq_UphQ_lr34rxybPIWwhJQu-BK4R19w=s0
Andres Soolo In theory, GAB was still hosted until 9AM (no idea which timezone), but it's already off with this message, no other page seems reachable.
ReplyDeletehttps://lh3.googleusercontent.com/wa_w8JBXCgv1DIksXpnN1GxO9bVhGpasPTMbv5orE7nLC1ruL3EU-DDeo5Ggj9XBhXH0SyIMm6dqUK2oOq-_JbwUKVaWw_bDaUE-=s0
Andres Soolo In theory, GAB was still hosted until 9AM (no idea which timezone), but it's already off with this message, no other page seems reachable.
ReplyDeletehttps://lh3.googleusercontent.com/vzuwvNHWDskUcVrJ-IiMkyWUdnmcS6zsSt613oJaEew0rs6SUNQF2C9dem_tXVc3w_4VmR-99xYBoPljx9Zkn6S_5YP5DdtvLbb6=s0
Andres Soolo In theory, GAB was still hosted until 9AM (no idea which timezone), but it's already off with this message, no other page seems reachable.
ReplyDeletehttps://lh3.googleusercontent.com/sSn67Y_ByS539vT-oJ3kyZEndwRwNmn44QCrXjFW11VP-VY2L7BRYu5s9mcu3oXfs3XvFzp8RHrBwczZpMymLnRm3LTUumFHf78T=s0
Andres Soolo In theory, GAB was still hosted until 9AM (no idea which timezone), but it's already off with this message, no other page seems reachable.
ReplyDeletehttps://lh3.googleusercontent.com/uv-C7qeT9LcI62wl2s057XU6-FsBaoZwAF1doxdZKT5IYiCMztI-cnxX_7hhd448U-BV9lODKsYruZu40U_ED_Pe2aXcXhRRqu-I=s0
Andres Soolo In theory, GAB was still hosted until 9AM (no idea which timezone), but it's already off with this message, no other page seems reachable.
ReplyDeletehttps://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Lj-pmJO1OXHuMiijzZmmy0Mca9yYPNjqAyr09jzeVJxfuAoC0dpuvjCr5hjRe-AzgbW2QGNfMuffQOFBspnblCfjEh6NUugRJ7Mp=s0
Andres Soolo In theory, GAB was still hosted until 9AM (no idea which timezone), but it's already off with this message, no other page seems reachable.
ReplyDeletehttps://lh3.googleusercontent.com/kIPcKkF7qUh4mRLm8KcnjVFwg8Of0TarSpC9wpM0HpKo08ao5-AW5-eTr8QCETwrLOnru2w0i8Glim-Ai25AijVykiO5AWyWqOxp=s0
Andres Soolo In theory, GAB was still hosted until 9AM (no idea which timezone), but it's already off with this message, no other page seems reachable.
ReplyDeletehttps://lh3.googleusercontent.com/hh5xmTDvbVrUKLJcnaVHFF65Kodd0bvuUehcaR5BIpKh6wSCZK5IKh_g-BkgWHyAaLLCwifcITcVASZHAdmNoUr4hRNOz13NXjVR=s0
Andres Soolo In theory, GAB was still hosted until 9AM (no idea which timezone), but it's already off with this message, no other page seems reachable.
ReplyDeletehttps://lh3.googleusercontent.com/1C3--Kru47QlENV5yt5J-exAQuepAmzHlEYucf9o9225TQVKdte8BvTbLlTbBORMnCNJ-aJLBKg8OJLTI-OcAygIOpKh0M4Xwkyp=s0
Andres Soolo In theory, GAB was still hosted until 9AM (no idea which timezone), but it's already off with this message, no other page seems reachable.
ReplyDeletehttps://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_Duc49GjbI2Rlh4CnhchDuzassenkXCJLE1LYvk73KFInyGeZUuGxKzT3VXfeX2K6otsp3uLNSNlLJeGMAL_h8VZruRErrjsfEk-=s0
Andres Soolo In theory, GAB was still hosted until 9AM (no idea which timezone), but it's already off with this message, no other page seems reachable.
ReplyDeletehttps://lh3.googleusercontent.com/mDgNMOJ-0-jkDMw3jtwEYBbM8QT6DhYoGmJMpTzo3WFrpf4sc1FdsAh9dpFG9WZmIecrMY48bxpBoXfzj3nhVLqf6x5Vu7SSoj4N=s0
Christian Nalletamby: I believe Gab is down, or was down. It's the part of Gab proactively reporting a Nazi to the FBI for threatening violence that I have some doubts about, and that's only sourced to Gab itself.
ReplyDeleteGreg Mee ProTip: I'm a mod, am seeking to advance discussion based on evidence, facts, and record, where possible. I'm also quite busy. Requests for information are just that, and you might want to consider your tone in response. Though the same goes to anyone for requests from anyone. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteThat said, your CNN link states:
Gab said it was alerted to the suspect's profile on their platform, backed up the data, suspended the account, and contacted the FBI.
And:
His most recent post was five minutes before police were alerted to the shooting
In that Gab post, Bowers said he "can't sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. Screw your optics, I'm going in."
So Gab did not freeze the account until at earliest five minutes prior to the attack. We don't know when it was reported to the FBI and Gab, who had the opportunity to disclose that information, chose not to.
His antisemitic posts to the site date to at least 17 days prior to the shooting:
Seventeen days before the attack, Bowers posted a web page from HIAS that listed a number of Shabbats that were being held on behalf of refugees, an official said. On that list was a Shabbat address that is less than a mile away from the Tree of Life Synagogue. (The chief executive officer of HIAS, Mark Hetfield, said Bowers is not known to the group.)
His posts regarding weapons to at least 29 September 2018:
On September 29, Bowers posted photos of his handgun collection on his Gab.com account.
Gab's claims of responsible action seem at best belated, if not entirely dubious. Based, again, on your own cited reference.
Andres Soolo Reading through CNN's reporting casts shadow at the least on proactive and speedy response.
ReplyDeleteVanity Fair:
ReplyDeleteGab took down Bowers’ account following the shooting, but the company has spent much of the weekend defending posts like those made by Bowers as free speech. As a result, Gab was dropped by cloud hosting provider Joyent as well as payment processing providers PayPal and Stripe.
https://variety.com/2018/digital/news/gab-shuts-down-1203006835/
variety.com - Twitter’s Far-Right Cousin Gab Shuts Down Following Synagogue Shooting – Variety
Edward Morbius Defending the posts seems like they've put themselves in a hard situation that it will be hard to come back from.
ReplyDeleteGab has become pretty notorious, I would NOT suggest using it because of the environment there if you have a problem with certain points of view. We know what points those are. Also, companies won't support them because of those views, so they probably cant get traction and now with the fact the bomber was using it, I have a feeling Gab's gabbing days are gone.
ReplyDelete