I assume its because the knee-jerk reaction is to temporarily silence and assess the situation, then once enough information has been gather a proper decision can be reached. It just seems nuts because the cadence of online social media is staggering.
How many times has someone on the internet threatened to harm you, personally? Said they’ll track you down, burn down your house, kill your dog, and rape your mom? Gosh, for me, it must be in the hundreds by now. They all sounded like they meant it, though, right? That was kinda the point.
That’s why you ban those people, rather than reporting everybody to the cops, because the threshold for a “credible” threat is insanely high, but you face liability if you allow that content to remain on your platform.
3 Likes
To be honest, the general tone of this thread seems to be quite dismissive and I don’t see it going anywhere constructive, so maybe it would be better for us who actually see this issue as important to take it to our own social media instead of wasting time trying to change people’s minds about whether it is an issue to begin with.
1 Like
I just read this entire thread, I want my money back.
8 Likes
I respectfully disagree. The threat can not be deemed to be not be credible, until the police investigate the report. And, even if the threat is eventually deemed to be not credible, if more of these Internet bullies got a knock on the door and an interview with local police, I expect they would think twice before threatening the next person. They are emboldened because they think that they are anonymous. When they find out that they are not anonymous, they will be more civil, just as they are IRL.
After a police interview, most sane people will then realize that there are consequences for their actions when on the Internet, just like there are when they are off the Internet. If someone can not control themselves, then a history of complaints against them will eventually aid the local authorities in making an effective prosecution, just as IRL.
2 Likes
2 Likes
I mostly agree with this.
Most of us feel it was either a non-issue or was justified. But hey that’s how things go sometimes right?
To be fair though the thread isn’t that old. Maybe enough people havn’t seen it yet, but it is a difficult topic to discuss without purposefully generating outrage.
We’ve come to the point where really explicit threats of violence are thrown around every day. The cops can’t investigate the vast majority of them, so the threshold for credible is very, very high. That synagogue shooter didn’t say anything unique, anything that thousands of others haven’t also said and are still saying today. There was no indication from his social media activity that this particular loser was the one that would go through with it.
That was a very stupid thing to say so I recommend you delete it.
3 Likes
It’s not so much that it’s generating outrage, it’s that OP brought up an issue, and general consensus seems to be that nobody here really cares and OP has spent much of the thread trying to convince people that it is an issue. So if nobody here sees it as an issue, OP would be better served in taking it to people who do agree that it is an issue, perhaps on Twitter [ironically] or Facebook, and that way the issue can actually be discussed AS an issue rather than waste time trying to get people to see it as one.
I don’t agree with the handwaving and frankly I thought something like this would get a more positive reception, but if nobody cares, nobody cares. Why waste the time?
Something something darkside something something complete.
So you’re saying he would be better served in an echo chamber of people that agree with him. Seems to me that’s a lot of the problem right there.
3 Likes
So unless this thread takes a drastic turn and get’s back on topic I am going to have to close it.
Both OP and the prior community members have demonstrated an inability to address or care about the point raised by @_hill
These things tend to attract the wrong kind of attention and rapidly deteriorate into a mud slinging festival and we’d rather not have that on this forum.
It’d be a real shame & irony to have to close this thread down.
1 Like
+1
I think it’s stupid to hold Gab accountable, but if any of the companies associated actually did anything illegal, Gab can take them to court. If not, Gab will have to find an alternative. Simple as that. I don’t know all their ToS, so I don’t know if it would actually stand.
That’s probably all I’m going to say because it sounds like most people here have already made up their minds.
1 Like
Within the current confines of the law, what exactly is the issue?
How is this any different than a company just trying to save face?
I don’t understand this sentiment. You and others have stated you do not care if Gab gets shut down/thrown into hoster musical chairs hell. Others have laid out why this is a bad idea to not care. The majority of the thread has said they don’t care, so why should the OP not go somewhere else to discuss this if they can’t do it here?
Because it needs to be addressed
Edit: OH boi
2 Likes
My view on this:
GoDaddy does not want to be affiliated or seen supporting gab.com and the content they host and are associated with for whatever they’re worth and GoDaddy is fully within their rights to terminate their gab.com’s account with them as outlined in their ToS.
“It’s just business”
Just why does gab staff need to tag Trump in this 
??
Just get a different domain host & registrar, as a sysadmin you could work around this without your users even knowing or noticing.
According to the thread, it’s a non-issue. All I’m suggesting is, if l1t users as shown here, do not care about this issue, OP should shrug and take the discussion to people who do care. Perhaps on the discord where people can go if they are interested, and people who don’t agree can say they voiced their opinions here.