Live data from Hacker News

Gab.com’s Response to Congress

news.gab.com

41–50 of 254 posts

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#41
post #15

Funny 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.

How am I supposed to show you what I posted when my account was banned? If I recall, it had something to do with being open to adopting QAnon and extremist Trump supporters kids once they were taken away from their parents because I thought they'd go full domestic terrorist after he lost the election. I guess I was right afterall.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

IANAL, but yes that's right as far as I understand it. But a request can very quickly become a demand

I have no dog in this particular fight, but if I were at the helm of any of these companies, I wouldn't willingly hand over my users' data without being lawfully required to do so. To do so would be an invasion of my users' privacy.

If it's so essential to the government to invade the private conversations of a company's user base, they should stand by their claims by using subpoena powers.

I believe they're hoping to avoid legal recourse by "requesting" rather than requiring.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#43
post #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.

That's not what they're saying.

They're saying as a company they don't have ownership of records of such discussions, which could be true.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#44

> All internal or external reviews, studies, reports, data, analyses, and related communications regarding your platform and (i) misinformation, disinformation and malinformation relating to the 2020 election; (ii) efforts to overturn, challenge, or otherwise interfere with the 2020 election or the certification of electoral college results; (iii) Domestic violent extremists, etc.; and (iv) foreign malign influence i…

Agreed that their claim of having literally zero strains credibility. This kind of feels like gab setting themselves up for a PR stunt lawsuit.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#45

> American citizens may have freedom of speech, but they find themselves with vanishingly few public forums in which to exercise it fully. Well put. As we've also seen from numerous leaks and incidents over the years, big business and government often works hand-in-hand, with revolving door policies and barely legal indirect bribes happening regularly. That the government is now seeking to curtail the First Amendment…

I'm alarmed. Mainly by the government coercing industry (lots of them, not just BigTech), getting in cahoots with industry, or directly paying industry (govt is definitely a monopsony in medicine since insurance rates are set off of medicare rates). I used to think govt had little control over our economy, but I was wrong.

Am hoping that our protections will be renewed because of potential loss of market share, and financial interests. BigTech isn't worth much if they go after 45% of their user population, I mean, product. Because of that I still actively use Amazon, Google, Facebook, and others

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#46

> American citizens may have freedom of speech, but they find themselves with vanishingly few public forums in which to exercise it fully. Well put. As we've also seen from numerous leaks and incidents over the years, big business and government often works hand-in-hand, with revolving door policies and barely legal indirect bribes happening regularly. That the government is now seeking to curtail the First Amendment…

It's terribly put. The American concept of freedom of speech has nothing to do with access to public forums but rather is a limit on government action against your ability to run your own forum (newspaper, etc), and if you consider that when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were actually written, most Americans had significantly less forums. A few newspapers made up almost the entirety of public forums when the right was written, and none of them were forced to publish political content they disagreed with.

In fact, when you realize that the internet has provided more forums for free speech than any technology in history, it beggars belief to suggest that there are less forums now than before.

We are at the ultimate highpoint of access to freespeech forums in American history, and to suggest otherwise is nakedly ignorant conservative propaganda pushing an emotional angle against technology corporations who enforce common sense rules against violence, terrorism, and hate speech on their private networks.

I maintain that until Fox News or conservative talk radio is mandated by the government to stop suppressing my free speech rights to have access to the network to say whatever I want, that Facebook and Twitter should not be forced to support insurrection and violence masquerading as free speech.

It's hard to understate how outrageous this lie is. It's like suggesting "folks today have less access to electricity than at any point in American history". It's such immensely stupid lie that how could anyone fall for it?

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#47
post #3

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.

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…

> they are speaking as if the first ammendment somehow requires them to do this

What portion of their statement are you referring to? I didn't notice anything in this post suggesting that they're required to support free speech, only that they agree with the underlying principles which inspired that provision in the constitution.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#48
post #3

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.

Eh their interpretation is fine from my perspective, what everyone around them does to make them ignorable is fine too, and it’s up to Gab to figure out how to be resilient and route around that.

Congress trying to figure out what is happening within the country is fine too. It’s a lot of people and businesses and they don’t know.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#49

> American citizens may have freedom of speech, but they find themselves with vanishingly few public forums in which to exercise it fully. Well put. As we've also seen from numerous leaks and incidents over the years, big business and government often works hand-in-hand, with revolving door policies and barely legal indirect bribes happening regularly. That the government is now seeking to curtail the First Amendment…

What pressure? Gab is not in trouble. You just don't have the right to conspire to overthrow the government. It's well-understood that Gab is not in any danger, but its members are if they did.

There are obvious ways the govt can pressure people who've committed no criminal act.

Being put on a no fly list or terrorist watch list are some examples. Happened all the time during the war on terror.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#50
post #39

> American citizens may have freedom of speech, but they find themselves with vanishingly few public forums in which to exercise it fully. Well put. As we've also seen from numerous leaks and incidents over the years, big business and government often works hand-in-hand, with revolving door policies and barely legal indirect bribes happening regularly. That the government is now seeking to curtail the First Amendment…

It seems to me like there are more forums for free speech now than ever before. When in our history has it been easier for the average citizen to find a platform to host their views?

You're right, because it's not about having a platform for speech, it's about escaping consequences for speech.
Post reply on HN