A private company probably shouldn’t be allowed to interpret the constitution to this degree. I wonder if someone will sue and SCOTUS will rule.
Honestly, what is the problem?
Gab.com’s Response to Congress
11–20 of 254 posts
Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress
#12> Gab does not have (and has never had) such records in its care or control
In response to a request for all “related communications” to terrorism/Jan. 6 etc. It strains belief that they haven’t even discussed these topics internally.
Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress
#1310/10 on IASIP title card usage, 1/10 on platform moderation
Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress
#14we need that web 3.0 now more than ever
The future is decentralized, how do we make it happen? It makes me sad that my children and their children are heading towards a sanitized internet where only the corporate mainstream is allowed and the rest is crucified.
yeah, it's scary how all of the internet is basically being hosted on amazon and logged on to using google or facebook
Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress
#15Funny they say they protect free speech when I was promptly banned from there for posting anti-Trump comments. encryptluks2 FSM is real
Vague claim. Show us what you posted. I have read anti-trump comments every day since the beginnings of Gab.
Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress
#16A private company probably shouldn’t be allowed to interpret the constitution to this degree. I wonder if someone will sue and SCOTUS will rule.
I'm not following what you mean, what is it you say they shouldn't be allowed to do?
The first ammendment does not apply to private companies at all -- well, it applies in that it gives them free speach rights themselves, so if you mean by "shouldn't be allowed to interpret" that they shouldn't be legally able to express this opinion, well, that'd be a first ammendment problem.
But it doesn't restrict private company's behavior at all. Private companies are not required by the first ammendment to give anyone free speech at all. Which is a kind of weird thing in this statement, they are speaking as if the first ammendment somehow requires them to do this, or as if private companies should be prevented from limiting speech (in general, that would in fact be the first ammendment problem, to compel the private company to provide a platform! although there are ways around that). But as legally weird or incorrect as I think their reasoning or interpretation of the constitution, I don't know why we would think they wouldn't be "allowed" to express a wrong opinion.
Under what grounds do you think someone would have a claim to sue them? Why do you think it would make it to the supreme court? I think you may not have an educated legal basis for that opinion, but you're still allowed to have it and express it!
Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress
#17A private company probably shouldn’t be allowed to interpret the constitution to this degree. I wonder if someone will sue and SCOTUS will rule.
Anyone should be able to interpret.
Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress
#18A private company probably shouldn’t be allowed to interpret the constitution to this degree. I wonder if someone will sue and SCOTUS will rule.
People should, on every occasion, first inquire with the government before exercising their most fundamental rights. It is the only way to ensure that the people maintain the ongoing approval of their government.
Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress
#19Feels like Gab just made itself a target of direct investigation. While you may not agree with how Congress acts, thumbing your nose at them directly is a great way to have the focus put solely on you.
So what? Not the end of the world. The government's not that good at its job. You don't have to be that afraid of it.
Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress
#20Feels like Gab just made itself a target of direct investigation. While you may not agree with how Congress acts, thumbing your nose at them directly is a great way to have the focus put solely on you.
I may be out of the loop a bit, but do these "requests" have any real power? It seems like subpoenas would have been the appropriate legal instrument if they needed to carry the full weight of Congress.