Return to Level1Techs.com

(Oh the irony thread closed) Gab hosting and DNS services terminated because of user content


#21

No, and Gab was not banned either. What they’re doing is not illegal, it’s just distasteful and offensive, and several companies decided not to do business with them.


#22

Doesn’t matter if it is illegal or not, if a private company doesn’t want to do business with them, that’s that. Nobody is required to do business with anyone if they don’t want to.


#23

Gab? :thinking:

They’re not exactly “right wing” if their claim to fame is being a last retreat for the “alt-right”, a Populist, liberal movement.


#24

The alt-right is left now? Have we entered bizarro world?

I mean, we have. Entered bizarro world, I mean. But alt-right still ain’t left.


#25

They have always been, imo.

As my gran’ pappy said: “Them alt-right ain’t right, son.”

But that’s as far into my family history as I’ll get ._.


#26

Lol let’s please not go deeper


#27

Ah yeah, I keep forgetting about how strange your laws can be over there. Maybe the Gab people can twist that to their advantage in court? If they manage to take it there that it.


#28

I’m not sure whether you were present or not, but the owner of the parent channel this website used to be associated with tried to take it down entirely a few years ago. It was only because the current proprietor actually had the keys to the kingdom that it wasn’t completely obliterated. Why did this happen? A personal vendetta. Nothing illegal, nothing that was not in the owner’s right to try to dismantle it, but it was extremely scummy.

It’s nice when scummy things don’t happen, isn’t it?


#29

I don’t know where you’re located, but here in the US we have a long, rich history of discriminating against minorities. These laws protecting classes from refusal are a good thing.

White people are in the majority and don’t have a history of discrimination in the US, so they are not a protected class.


#30

I don’t think I have much more to say, but I would like to point out that for a userbase that is so against Intel, Nvidia, and Microsoft for what they loudly tout as “underhanded” tactics, I find it funny that the “well, it’s a private company” excuse is so readily used.


#31

Well there was the mass immigration of the Irish… But they brought pizza IIRC.


#32

Oh I were around then. What has it to do with a company like godaddy not wanting to be associated with a forum populated by, let say, extreme opinions? It is still private entities doing business. Not like a State censoring Citizens.


#33

It’s not an excuse. They are private companies. It isn’t the government saying they can’t exist, it’s a company declining to provide service.

If I run a bar and have a sign up saying “no shirt, no shoes, no service”, and your raggety ass walks in butt nekked, I’m well within my rights to toss you out.

@Dynamic_Gravity: Yes, Irish and Catholics were discriminated against for a while, but that was a very long time ago.


#34

I think we’re getting a bit side tracked (my apologies). I find the premise of the OP to be false, and have stated my reasons why.

I also find it hard to support, personally, any sites that cater to the behavior that the site in the OP is being recognized, regardless of if that’s their primary platform.

The website itself is still around, but they’re getting a lot of negative attention. Not really helping themselves… Lies, the website has been taken down, as of 12:00 PM CST, apparently…

@Goblin The account holder on Twitter has a history of less than tasteful comments that don’t really prove your point that the site is “for everybody”. “This person has a “-stein” sounding name and is against free speech, imagine my surprise”, etc. If their site is for everyone, that’s great. However, they seem to have made a point to bring the ugliest of the ugly to their platform, and they’re proud of it. Now, in true “alt” whatever fashion, they’re playing victim and blaming others for their problems, giving credence to a grand conspiracy.

I have very extreme views on a lot of subjects. I disagree with how a lot of elements of are managed that are out of my control. But, Jesus, I can at least write a few paragraphs and conduct myself with more maturity than the lot I’ve met of that crew that seem to be upset about this site leaving. When your reaction is “Jew”, “cuck”, “lib-tard”, “republicuck”, etc. to any sort of challenge or question to your idea, you get what you get, and not a lot of people are going to fight for that :man_shrugging:

Call me anti-freedom and pro-censorship all you want. I’m neither of those things. However, I don’t put myself in situations where I have to work miracles to get people to believe that I don’t facilitate people with murder in their heart.

image


#35

Yeah. Make-ups over pizza and then everyone got on with their lives.


#36

The main problem with gab is the lack of moderation. 4chan is a moderated site, to a point (arguably not enough). This is the same reason that Facebook and Twitter’s existence continues, despite the use of the platforms to spread illicit ideologies - they actively try to prevent these people doing so (whether or not they’re successful at doing so is a whole other rabbit hole).

Providing a completely open platform, where people whose main ideologies focus on taking away the rights of others can prosper, is not enabling free speech. If anything, I’d argue it is having the complete opposite effect. By giving these people a platform, and allowing them to continue using it, you’re allowing their views to have an actual influence on the actions of others.


#37

Yes, of course, that sort of behavior is harmful and evil. But it is not illegal, because while it initially sounds like a groovy idea to allow the government to censor things you disagree with, the government changes every so often, and in 4 or 8 years they may try to censor stuff you think is right and proper and good.


#38

I’d like to point out that Gab has on multiple occasions banned users for promoting violence.


#39

According to a supreme court decision back in the 60s, inciting violence is not protected speech in the US where it has the intent and likelihood of causing violence. So there is substantial liability there.

Of course that definition is very vague and can be ambiguous, so most sites just ban any sort of speech that could be seen as inciting real-world violence.


#40

In relation to Gab