Social Network Gab.com being threatened by Godaddy: 24 hours to transfer or suspension

A lot of nonsense in this post.

"These companies are dictating what is free speech and what is hate speech."

Do you consider wiping out/eradicating kikes, putting jews in ovens as hate speech? Most would.

These Corporations such as Twitter, Paypal, FaceBook are alienating a certain group (CONSERVATIVES AND REPUBLICANS) aka Alt Right.

That's false. There are no shortage of Conservatives/Republicans on those sites. I could drop big names, names you've never heard of all day long. The Alt-Right, Fringe Right that violate the TOS of those services might get hit. The big corps are out to get you is just some bonding ritual. Doesn't hold up tho.

Just like African Americans in the 50's and 60's could not use the same bathrooms as whites.

Really? You're comparing people getting banned from social networks for violent speech to this? Talk about a reach.

Many conservatives and Christians are waking up.

Many would not tolerate that type of stuff on that site.

-------------
'They have been doing this for months but to small unknown conservatives such as Diamond &Silk."

They have a live Twitter, Facebook, YouTube etc. You can go right now and watch their videos, read their tweets.

200,000+ subs YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCug1cL7vmUvYooOjXyHjsxQ

Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/DiamondandSilk/

Twitter, almost 1 million followers
https://twitter.com/DiamondandSilk?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

 

I got dislikes lol, ok, @DanSanchez and @SuperNames , would you like your child to be able to access these types of websites? And freely read posts that may influence them to learn hatred because of skin color, religion and ect?

 

People need to be extremely careful when saying things like this ... these are two extremely separate things.

The very foundation of freedom and democracy is that people should be allowed to think whatever they want to think. Although I'm personally against racism, it is not and should never be illegal to be racist. I know that might sound a concept that's wrong and it is admittedly difficult to grasp. But as I think @offthehandle mentioned above .. nobody (in a free society) has the right not to be offended.

The concept of freedom of speech is based on the fact that through open debate a society will learn and grow from each other. Oppressing beliefs and views, no matter now horrible and wrong we think they might be, is actually harmful to a society because those (arguably) wrong beliefs are never challenged, and thus allowed to grow unchecked.

That being said .. there are certainly limits to what is and should be allowed by freedom of speech. Essentially those limits are when other people are exposed to tangible danger. Which is why it is illegal to yell fire in a movie theatre .. also why child pornography is illegal (the freedom of speech argument isn't only limited to words, it transcends to video, even to clothing, and permeates wider and deeper than most people realise).

That being said .. in this case, the 2nd part of your statement indeed is 100% true, in that specifically calling and/or threatening malice on others indeed is tangibly affecting them. Living under a specific threat is a form of harm. That's putting it very simply and the concepts of free speech gets a lot more complex, but at the end of the day it's vitally important that people know there is a line and limit to "freedom of speech" .. and more importantly, that there are very good reasons for those limits ... but at the same time .. there needs to be a huge amount of caution that everything up to that line/limit is respected and that people are indeed allowed to do or say or wear whatever they like as long as there is no direct harm to others.

 

The only child I see here is you, are you unable to discern right from wrong? Or will some random internet post sway your opinion into radicalizing and acting against the non-aggression principle? It's childish to want a clean experience online, it is up to individuals to choose what to pay attention to. Your arguments are weak minded and exclude any freedom from the equation, if you want to live under controlled thought regime, you could visit one of the many nations around the world that depend on the removal of opposing views to exist.

 

Exactly, Calling to murder police. They have anti establishment agenda. The video above is self evident.

Here is an FBI counter terrorism report about what they call as the BIE.

https://privacysos.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/FBI-BlackIdentityExtremists.pdf

 

An act of terrorism in my homeland , due in part to a website not contacting police , as well as not moderating the site, needs to go, absolutely.IMO

I am all about free speech, freedom, non censorship, but with all that comes responsibility and accountability.

The type of subject matter being conducted on some sites, should only be only seen by members of the site IMO, it is just not appropriate for web surfers to encounter IMO

So instead of pure public domain, they should have the forums not show posts in threads, unless someone signs up to become a member of a forum with such content IMO

 

That’s not an original quote btw: credit where credit is due. It was part of a common sense document I have had from the early 90’s internet. Here I found an online copy:

ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/795813/posts

Since there is so much confusion on the part of some as to what the Bill of Rights actually mean to individuals and to our society, how about adoption of a Bill of No Rights, specifying the rights NOT extended to people in our society:

ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful, do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.

ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.

ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.

ARTICLE IX: You don't have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.

ARTICLE X: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness -- which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an overabundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused about what the original Bill of Rights mean.

 

I think what you're not understanding with regards to this discussion, is that deliberate calling for harm or violence towards others is one of the few exceptional cases that DOES NOT fall within the protection of free speech. It is actively causing harm and/or actually impeding on the freedoms/rights of others.

Saying things like "I don't like purple people" is not illegal .. but saying "purple people should be killed" is a tangible call to action most definitely is illegal and is in no way protected by "freedom of speech", just as freedom of speech does not protect the producers of child pornography.

The problem with your entire discussion .. is that it was not simply one guy who used profanity.

"GoDaddy investigated and discovered numerous instances of content on the site that both promotes and encourages violence against people." - GoDaddy

I can say with virtual absolute certainty that GoDaddy would not have made such a statement without clearing it past their legal department ... and that in turn .. their legal department would not have worded it as "promotes and encourages violence against people" if that were not in fact the case.

Very well put together post that deserves more than a like!

 

People talk sh*t until they are affected personally. Had their loved ones been among the victims, then their perception of events would change, their focus would shift from defense of free speech to personal responsibility.

It's always interesting how people can waste a lot of time and energy defending hate groups in the name of free speech
but they are not that interested in the people targeted by those same hate groups, they are the ones who deserve rights and protection

So why do we side with the attackers more than with the victims ?

To the OP: you could have used your real account. Are you afraid of your opinions ?

 

That's a stretch Kate, I clearly stated there needs to be non-aggression, yet somehow I'm pooled in with defending an attacker that obviously violated that non-aggression principle? Perhaps it needs clarification for some, yet it shouldn't. You are calling for the use of aggression and coercion in order to satisfy your desires for a clear experience, should you, or anyone violate the non-aggression principle, for whatever reason, is unjustified.

I can see how it's easy and satisfying to witness someone you disagree with, and label "hate speech", be taken down by force. But this makes you no better than someone who acts with aggression themselves. In other words, some of you are okay with creating victims of different kinds in order to justify your narrow world view or protectionist ideologies.

The attacker was radicalized by his own lack of value for life and morality, it has nothing to do with the platform he chose to post on or how it was distributed.

Done for tonight, it's regretful to see this sort of rhetoric on a forum that demands the use of voluntary association to conduct business.

 

@equity78 This is a rather disturbing threatening comment by one of your readers, just the same sort of lunacy being discussed. Free Speech includes threats of harming others?

https://www.thedomains.com/2018/10/30/gab-com-lands-at-uniregistry/

“That NamePros thread is one of the craziest threads I have ever read on there in 10 years.
Free Speech, Violence, Religion, Porn, Moral Debate, Politics, Hidden Agendas, Passion, Capitalism, Stupidity…
Oh and a sprinkle of beastiality too… WTF

If you can read thru that whole thing without wanting to punch somebody in the throat, well then you’re a liar.”

 

opposing views. debating, the right to be offended, name calling, I don't give a damn about all that, when people start getting hurt, then I give a damn and I take it personally to become my business not to become a victim.

I am a white man, with a black wife and biracial son. Of course, people look. have their opinion, disagree, and all that sh*t.

But in 16 years, I have never had one say something to my face, and as long it stays that way, I don't give a rats ass what they think. I have a family I love, a family to provide for, my own life with my family.

 

It was me. I was being sarcastic. This is a very hotly contested debate and passions are running extremely deep here. Seems like no matter what one sides message is here, the other side is getting very hot.

It was just exaggerated sarcasm. Thats it.
If that was offensive to you or anyone else, then you have my apologies.

 

1. "Talk about committing malice" is not allowed on gab as outlined in its policy and is removed when seen , so what exactly are you referring to ?

2. "allowing any time of hate group to freely express hatred is condoning the acts they may initiate." Do you hold the government to the same standard? Because according to the Supreme Court of the United States,
the United States constitution protects "hate groups to freely express hatred" because their speech is protected free speech. This allows white nationalists like Richard Spencer to tour public colleges and speak
To students about his ideas To segregate the population based on race. do you hold the united states to the same standard you wrote? Do you condemn the first amendent that protects hate speech from white supremacists? Or will you condone it and continue living here

 

Calling for harm is illegal and not allowed on gab to begin with, so I'm not sure why you're including this as an argument



Godaddy said they found examples of violence. My problem with this is:

-they Didn't give the examples to gab that they found so that gab can remove it. Do you think godaddy would have done the same to twitter? "hey we found this tweet where someone wanted to punch someone. Twitter, You have 24 hours or were suspending your domain"

No they wouldn't. Godaddy did this to gab as an attempt to hurt the website, its revenue, and as an act of virtue signaling. Also because godaddy is bad customer service at times

 

Don't confuse "Tolerate with "Condone".

I tolerate such groups. They have their rights, they exercise them. I don't condone the behavior though.

I love my country the USA.

Do I agree with hate groups of any kind, No I don't

Do I think they have a useful cause to American society? No, I don't think they do.

Do I believe in our constitution, bill of rights, I absolutely 100% do.

According to the article, I read concerning the killer and his postings on the website Gab.com, The subject had posted intent to do harm, the subject had spoken in volume of his intentions. If this incorrect, please correct it. or post chat logs that the subject murderer wrote concerning this topic.

 

The very fundamental fact people here to try to tell you, (that you continue to ignore), is that Gab specifically state that they have no intention of policing nor drawing a line at any point. So yeah .. on one side they claim "it's not allowed" .. but the reality is that by having zero enforcement .. it effectively is allowed!

Then only AFTER this very public horrible event .. after the whole world turns to shine a light on them to see what's truly going on there .. do they take action.

They are truly an irresponsible company with no true regard for the realities of true freedom .. which in fact is knowing that there IS A LINE between freedom of speech and other personal freedoms like the right for people to live without persecution, and without active and tangible threats against them.

It IS NOT up to GoDaddy to police their site .. Gab should have been doing so from the start. *IF* Gab had been making an honest effort to keep illegal hate crimes to a minimum then you would have more of an argument ... but Gab were very clear that they had no intention of policing against such illegal activity .. how you continue to support them and their deliberate and intentional ignorance to the illegal activity on their website is very sad!

I strongly suggest you go inform yourself on all the various aspects of free speech and how they contrast and conflict with other personal freedoms. FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE CONCEPT ... yes .. it is indeed a crucial and vitally important component of both freedom and democracy .. but there are limits to it as it fits in with other personal rights and freedoms .. particularly the right to live without people threatening to take your life based solely on your personal beliefs .. particularly if those beliefs do not directly harm others in any way.

 

I have never heard of Gab.com. When I research it I am unable to find any evidence of nefarious activity. I have only seen articles with political bias reporting, but no evidence, no facts. Where is the evidence, the facts, that shows Gab to be this evil social media platform?

 

. Gab removes violent content once its brought to their attention Or if their mods catch it

It doesnt exist. This data analyst sifted through all of GABA posts

 

ok, fair enough, so are you a member or associated with Gab.com???

 

Site didn't let me edit

A data analyst recently found That about 596,547 posts on gab mention "Jews,jew,jewish,judaism,(slur), (another slur)" . That's only 2% of all posts to Gab.

That means 98+% of posts on Gab have nothing to do with antisemitism. That means its likely the same amount on other social networks


I'm visit gab ocassionally. Not associated with them. Just a user

 

I am wondering the same thing, why didn't they use their real account??

 

I have never visited Gab, but I mean that is a pretty rudimentary way to analyze data.

First of all 2% of all posts mentioning one of those terms seems extraordinarily high.
There are also plenty of ways to say racist, hateful stuff without using those terms.

That data really means nothing in my view.

Brad

 

Take your time OP, I know, it takes time to come up with sh*t. you snap at every post as they come in, then your completely quite when asked very important questions. Umm Hmmm

 

Do you have data to the contrary?