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

lol, the hypocrisy i'm not gonna repeat what other people have said here because they've said it clear enough. if I'm a web hoster who is gay, and I find out one of my clients is hosting anti-gay shit, because web hosting is a service I am providing I am fully in my rights to take it down and tell them to take their business elsewhere. None of these companies want to be associated with nazis funnily fucking enough, and as such are terminating the service they provide. If you think that's censorship and not them saving their own skin, go back to school.

Yes. Yes it is. I can't shout this enough but trying to silence them only makes them stronger. They can and always will. The best way to deal with them isn't to try and shut them up. They'll actually play the victim then. No, the best thing to do is to point and laugh at their racism. Kinda like I just did. Jewish friend of mine asked a skinhead if the holocaust ever happened, his response was along the lines of "No but I wish it did" and everyone laughed at the skinhead.

Look at it this way, dude. They started a platform for dog ownership, but they needed to host it somewhere. They found someone willing to host, on the condition that they follow their own rules and pick up the dog-shit. Well, they didn't pick up their dog-shit when it was revealed they were full of dog shit, the hosts kicked them out, and suddenly they (and you) are surprised that nobody else wants to host some dumb-ass who won't even try to ensure the dog shit gets cleaned up.

Youre losing your mind and because a webhoster service decided they didn't want to host nazis who just killed 11 innocent people. This is what you call "authoritarian" and "anti free-speech" They're killing people right now, and people like you whine about free speech of anti-free speech fascists who'd take all your rights away if they were in power. Yeah don't make me laugh. You know exactly what you're doing by sensationalising this.

honestly man I would've agreed with you a couple years ago but i've changed my mind. That would work in an ideal world, but it doesn't here. Because when we point and laugh, they want to go and justify that their viewpoint isn't the bad one - one quick google search and they'll have found a forum or reddit or heck even facebook or twitter group that they can instantly get comforted and find a group that will defend them. Pointing and laughing works when there isn't a support group. By allowing these sites to exist we easily allow these people to vindicate their viewpoints and turn those who point and laughed into an enemy to rile against, rather than the personification of society. By removing these sites or at least making them not so readily available, these folks can't be vindicated so easily and thus has a greater chance of them actually thinking twice abotu themselves.

What equal screen time, the TV analogy doesn't work for the internet because what you read is your own choice unlike when there's curated, limited channels, and anyone is supposed to be able to host a website. Instead you're trying to decide what other people read, your analogy would be "ban dissent on climate issues entirely" which while it might be temporarily convenient for political/people are stupid reasons obviously is antithetical to the basic function of science.

man I couldn't remotely care how left leaning you are, that doesn't suddenly make your point any better. What you expecting us to do, "oh wait you support bernie no actually I totally agree with you haha #leftiebros". There's freedom of speech and there's forcing companies to host severely brand-damaging material just because

Just like how allowing platforms for anti-vaxxers has reduced the number of anti-vaxxers. wait a second Again, bigots and fascists will play victim at anything. They'll play victim when they're the most powerful people on earth, they'll play victim at other people simply existing, or god forbid mildly criticizing them. Giving someone screentime or a platform so that you can disprove them publicly sounds like it will work better than leaving the problem untouched. But people aren't always rational. They'll see a flat earther and a normal person arguing over whether or not facts are real, and some will start to think "maybe facts ARE for losers".

what world do you live in where web hosting some sort of guaranteed human right?

You are literally an anti free speech authoritarian using other anti free speech authoritarians to promote your own brand of it while doing your best to be as manipulative and scummy as possible, throwing secret nazi accusations like it's fashionable. It's by far the most abhorrent thing in this thread.

Even when it's not a human right, you can still self-host should you ever get blacklisted from every known web-host currently in existence. It's really not hard to set up a HTTP server and all the other required infrastructure today. And then you can be a Nazi all you like! You're not beholden to anybody! Datacentres and ISPs largely don't care what you're doing with their racks or connections unless you're doing actually illegal shit. Like organising attacks on political opponents. Oh. Whoops.

want to respond to anything else I've said?

This is just my opinion, but I think the most abhorrent thing related to this thread is the fact that, yesterday, a man murdered 11 people.

Freedom of speech also covers your ability to write books and make telephone calls (provided you can pay for the services involved, of course), it doesn't literally mean just your ability to yell things on a street corner. The entire point here is that we should expand these protections to also cover the next biggest free speech platform in the world, the internet.

Funny cause I never called you a nazi, oh a strawman how convenient. Keep saying that i'm authoritarian when youre suggesting that we should take away the right of private entities to decide who do they business with or not, because nazis aren't given a megaphone and have to use another website.

And, more importantly, this argument going on is a load of shit because these hateful, vitriolic assholes were allowed to host their website on this provider right up until that moment. At which point, the server host decided they didn't want to be associated with literal fucking murderers. That's not a free speech issue, that's a human decency one.

Obviously those things didnt happen in this thread, this is trite.

Except it is the direct cause of Gab being dropped by the server provider, because the man who committed the shooting was an avid user and reinforced by the radical "race war now" types who have bunkered down on it.

One of the neo nazi talking points is that private businesses should be allowed to simply choose to not do business with various minorities including race, gender and political opponents, why are you arguing to create more tools to do this. If you'd like to clarify your obvious insinuations nobody is stopping you, but that might clear some smoke from the manipulations so i guess it's out of fashion.

so a publisher therefore HAS to print anti-Semitic garbage on your behalf because freedom of speech? No. A publisher doesn't have to do that. Because it's got an image to maintain, money to make smart investments with and oh, wait , yeah, the ability to deny it's service to whomever it pleases. Just like web services!! This isn't freedom of speech. This is anti semetic hate speech and not a time to start hypothesizing about other situations. I'm sorry but I'm never going to support mechanisms to defend actively publishing and promoting hate speech, something which society and shockingly a vast amount of this thread also agree with. How on earth can you not see understand this? Cool, fine, defend your position as not a nazi, but make an active effort to essentially defend Nazis, as you are doing in this thread whether you realise it or not, isn't exactly something I'd write on my CV. Also obligated to reply, get over myself? Mate, take a look at yourself. Really?

You don't see the difference between a business refusing service to someone because they're a minority or political opponent, and a business refusing service to someone who wants businesses to refuse services to minorities / political opponents? Or more relevantly refusing service to someone who advocates murder?

You're not a nazi, and I never called you one. But keep lying, if there's nothing else for you to say to try to sway people to your awful opinions.

A publisher typically has editorial input, the person selling you the paper doesnt. Should you be banned from buying paper if every stationary shop owner in your 1950 town disagrees with your civil rights group? A server is analogous to the paper in this instance because of the lack of editorial input, and you cannot just host your own http server on any ISP i know of in the US without breaking TOS, though of course there are more decentralized options being developed though people in this thread want those censored too. Furthermore it's not just web hosts, it's payment processing and other basic services needed to continue existing on the internet. The basic disagreement is whether these people be allowed to exist on the internet. You complained about me not replying fast enough to you in a post you didn't bother replying to me in, that's getting a bit too rabid dude. The dishonesty is incredible. Gab themselves didnt advocate murder as much as 4chan or reddit advocated murder when those relevant murders took place. Obviously if someone is advocating murder, it's literally illegal so there's no question about canning them specifically (and preferably, incarcerating them), but this was a user. Gab, the company themselves, are pretty hypocritical but if rights exist they need to exist for everyone, unfortunately that's how that works.

I mean it worked for /mlp/ but that's about it, if /pol/ stayed in /pol/ 4chan would be heaven indeed. And if you got rid of templateposting, unoriginal wojack brainlets.

"We unequivocally condemn violence please ignore the tweets where we call rightist terrorism a false flag and our many alt-right dog whistles that amount to tacit support of the violent fringe."

Antisemitic violence increase by 60% last year in the US in 2017, the year of charlottsville rally where nazis murdered Heather Heyer. The worst it has ever been in 30 years. But you know, there's nothing to be done, businessses are forced to give nazis a platform, anything else is AUTHORITARIAN and ANTI-FREE-SPEECH, and we're the monster for suggesting companies are free to not give nazies a megaphone.

There's a line that's crossed when people start to organize attacks on political opponents on a platform. That line was crossed. I'm 100% for free speech and idubbz and pewdiepie being able to say the naughty slur word on youtube or whatever, but when the murder of someone becomes a real concern as a result of things orchestrated in your platform, that stops being "free speech", that's straight up domestic terrorism in my mind.

Wonder what the attitude will be on here when hosting isn't decided by the hosting companies, but by upstream providers on what they allow on their network.

Gab was always just boneless twitter anyway

I find the precedent of the removal of nuance entirely far more threatening than the weak non-argument of "censorship." Equating "these people want to kill anyone not exactly like them" and "these people want left related policies like health care they can afford" is so obvious in its intent it hurts. The idea that anyone's bullshit personal view=legit political stance is what the right tries to constantly push so they can get leaders like Trump and enact whatever they want, no matter how harmful. Pretending any view is a fine political stance worthy of consideration and equality with all others erodes away critical thinking and nuance in a huge way and it's blatant why the people who just happen to do it only every time something like this happens want to push it.