Gab.com, A Social Site that the Pittsburgh shooter used, is being deplatformed - Sensationalist Headlines

A webhoster not wanting to host a white supremacist site is not censorship. A webhoster being forced to host a white supremacist site like you want is something else entirely though.

He just said that he's not fine with giving ANY extremists a platform dude. Read the post you just quoted. Also like you just said "Everyone is entitled to voice their opinion, you do not have to accept it". You realize what this news is about right? It's people that don't want to accept these opinions and so don't want to pay to support them.

Have you considered that maybe society could one day change for the worse? Are you completely oblivious to the rise of DF (or Nye Borgerlige) and the newfound right-populist tendencies of the Social Democrats and Venstre? There's no law that says societies must always go from worse to better, or that society can't regress in its views towards minorities. If everyone around you started supporting fascism and shunned you, would you "reevaluate your position"? You really didn't think this through.

This is almost as good as "antifa fascists"

My priorities aren't to "protect nazis on twitter", my priorities are to protect free speech. You seem to equate those two for some inexplicable reason. You seem to think fire should be fought by fire, and I just disagree. We should uphold the principles of free speech, not dismiss them, when they're attacked by fascists.

Lol. I said I think the media should be reserved in giving extremists who are a threat to liberal democracy a platform. Not giving a platform does not equal to not being entitled to having an opinion. Did you miss the part where I said that constantly and uncritically giving extremists a platform affects people's views on what political views are normal and acceptable? I'm against democracy because I want the press and politicians to take their responsibility in defending liberal democracy?

I was gonna say its overkill to close a whole site because of one person but HOLY FUCK

I guess every guy on a soapbox should be given a stadium of people forced to listen to their opinions no matter how insane they are then?

The people who want to destroy LGBT rights right now are the same people who want to destroy freedom of expression. And they're in power. This is your threat. Not web hoster deciding they don't want to host nazis. "If everyone around you started supporting fascism and shunned you" Is this more likely to happen if private platforms allow nazis to spread their ideologies on their platform, or if they don't. Again you're talking about hypotheticals completely disconnected with the world works.

funny how "free speech" only comes up when it's the alt right being censored

Every magazine should host any ad they recieve. Every radio station should never hang up on callers. Webhosts should have to host anyone. You idiots defending 'free speech' here are saying that private citizens iwning private businesses should be forced by the government to supress and quiet their own free speech for anothers. And to top this hypocritical cake off, these webhosts/social media sites became so powerful because you wanted all of this to consolidate and once it did you gave every hateful bigot, every criminal, every scammer, and every twofaced government full access to your information and speech and now you scream foul when its neo nazies.

I would love to remind you that the guy behind the Gab.com twitter account used this "argument" instead of all the others he could've easily used... (stolen straight from the first page from Narry, pls don't sue) https://narry.land/FtQMcX.png "A white Trump supporter shot up a bunch of Jews? What the fuck are you talking about? This guy isn't even WHITE!"

I feel like we're just retreading the same points again now - I think I've said my piece pretty much. Suffice to say we disagree on a couple of points.

When it comes to Gab/ Voat/ etc. it's really not "one person", those entire platforms are utterly filled with far-right reactionaries, neo-nazis and other facists. They all cropped up in reaction to Twitter and Facebook "purging the right". Despite the fact that those platforms haven't done anything of the sort, and in the case of Twitter are actively harbouring far-right lunatics until media attention makes it look bad.

I view this in a similar right to the (relatively) recent cake bakery ruling. I think a surprisingly decent chunk of people found that to be a reasonable conclusion? It's discriminatory to refuse service to someone outright because of their views, sex, or creed. However it should not fall upon a private citizen or institution to produce art or otherwise display work which they disagree with. It's the reason you can't go up to artists and request that they draw you pictures with shitting dick-nipple futas and then sue them for discrimination if they refuse to do it, it's the reason that you can't try to pay a billboard host to display goatse over a major freeway and then sue them for 'violating my freedom of speech' when they refuse, and it's the reason why you can't sue internet hosts for refusing to host neo-nazi bullcrap. If Gab would like to continue operating, they're more than free to host the site themselves. Nobody has an obligation to host their site for them, and forcing others to do so would be in and of itself tantamount to an infringement on the first amendment rights of those who would be forced to host for them.

Free speech is the modern day "states' rights" argument: coded language disguised as a greater cause to justify, at best, being a dick to others; or at worst, spreading hateful ideologies.

They are private companies and can choose what content they show on their site, if it was a federal entity then it would be a different story

"It's my God-given right via The Constitution to be able to plot the extermination of the Jews in peace! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"

The constitution doesn't entitle you to other peoples megaphones to say your dumb shit, I don't know where people get this idea that they are.

The trouble in most cases is that running them off one place just causes them to relocate to somewhere else. I'm not going to be dripping any tears for Gab but censoring ("Disallowing them to communicate" if you think the word doesn't apply here) doesn't just make racists vanish. On contrare, it kinda gives them fodder for trying to recruit others. Hey look, the jewish illuminati is censoring us for making jew jokes and informing people about the true facts about how the holocaust didn't happen even though it'd be a good thing if it did! If you like free speech and don't like being censored by the liberal cuck media then you should join us!

They're already claiming that all of the time, wether or not they have a megaphone and a bigger platform to spread their rhetotoric to more people. Their lies will be the same, all you can do is inform people of their dogwhistles and deplatform them, like spencer and milo were.

It's understandable to be worried about big companies and big social media platforms to be able to censor views. It's wrong to censor people for being against Trump, and it's wrong to censor people for being for Trump. It's wrong to censor people for being pro-choice, and it's wrong to censor people for being pro-life. Etc. But it's nonsense to think that there shouldn't be some sort of line. Like advocating violence, advocating taking rights away from people, advocating blatant bigotry, or advocating speech that stops just shy of calling for violence but is obviously a dog whistle for it. "jews did 9/11" is past that line. To argue "but what if they did it to someone who WASN'T advocating for bigotry" is nothing but a slippery slope fallacy. Sure, gab says they limit stuff calling for violence, but 1. obviously not enough and 2. they don't limit stuff that heavily, heavily implies violence, or at least justifies discrimination and bigotry.

Societies with free speech requires intolerance of the intolerant, that's how it's always been. Also, containment boards do not work.

If Facebook and Twitter did more to curb extremist attitudes and behaviors they wouldn't have become so extremely mainstream.

TL;DR: We totally told them in the document they never read but blindly agreed to not to do this shit so pls stop banning us from everything oh and btw we will never learn from this ever.

Isn't this just giving these people more fuel for their insane conspiracy theories.

People need to stop acting like every issue has 2 or more different but equal sides. No, not all arguments are equal, climate change deniers don't deserve equal screen time as scientists, Nazis don't deserve a platform at all

I thought Tudd mentioned he posted on Gab but maybe I was remembering wrong and it was voat Not that voat isn't filled with nazis

Ah yes, "deplatform them" and "inform people" of their "dogwhistles", sounds good until you realize you just spent half your posts here accusing someone almost completely aligned with bernie sanders politics (disagree on nuclear, whatever) of having secret nazi motives because i value free speech. Sounds like a great, reliable methodology that certainly won't result in insane witchhunting and way more damage than its worth. Classic motte and bailey, hold up milo as an example while transparently attacking people right here, you're incredibly dishonest and manipulative and have no place spreading your authoritarian anti-free speech garbage here.

Yeah, uhm, yeah it's scientifically proven that "Nazis don't deserve a platform" is true just look at this extensive list of scientific papers on the subject: Yeah it's totally like climate change. I agree, though, Nazis don't deserve a "platform". What a platform is, and why Nazis might get one undeservedly anyway (because of other philosophical concerns) is a different matter. You can't just place two statements next to each other and pretend they carry the same weight. "No, not all arguments are equal, climate change deniers don't deserve equal screen time as scientists, and also the Earth is flat" Yeah idk it's like it's not really an argument at all somehow.