Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gab.com’s Response to Congress

news.gab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 254 posts

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#51

Post by masklinn »

cobrabyte wrote: post #20
wobblyasp wrote: post #10

Feels 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.

It’s not uncommon to start by asking nicely in case there can be an easy resolution. A subpoena is a much more brutal process and requirement.

It’s like asking someone to stop pissing on the church wall instead of calling the police immediately.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#53

Post by cobrabyte »

ghastmaster wrote: post #27
cobrabyte wrote: post #20

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.

Yes. It can result in a contempt charge, if the recipient does not comply. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

Reading the first couple of sentences, it looks like Contempt of Congress applies only if you ignore a subpoena. It doesn't appear that Congress used subpoena powers (I may be wrong in this assumption) for this request, and Gab's reply to their request for information was optional.

Of course, Gab understands that to ignore the request altogether would have left them open to further harassment by the government, and they provided as little information as possible, but still complied with the request.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#54

Post by mc32 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #28

> 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…

You’re mixing two distinct things. Sunlight is the best disinfectant when it comes to freedom of speech, but that does not imply the government should have full access to the communication of individuals and trounce the fourth amendment.

Put it this way, if the government wanted to get all comms around antifa, or any other anti gov anti police protests, would that be okay?

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#55

Post by masklinn »

ghastmaster wrote: post #27
cobrabyte wrote: post #20

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.

Yes. It can result in a contempt charge, if the recipient does not comply. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

Contempt is in failure to respond to a subpoena.

A subpoena is the risk if you don’t respond to a congressional request. So this is two steps removed from a potential contempt charge.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#56

Post by oplav »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #28

> 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…

They did at some point.

> Gab suspended the account belonging to Robert Gregory Bowers, the man charged with killing 11 people at a Pittsburgh synagogue last month, shortly after the attack. The site said it backed up all user data for that account and notified the FBI.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/what-is-gab

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#57

Post by wobblyasp »

atok1 wrote: post #23
wobblyasp wrote: post #10

Feels 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.

Why would anyone want to voluntarily hand over data? It can only lead to consequences to their user base, thus not being in their interest. The gov puts out way too many requests for info as it stands.

Not saying they should/shouldn't; just that coming at it from this angel is only going to cause more problems.

I'm personally not a fan of Gab, and their claims on freedom of speech have, in my opinion, been way over blown. Plenty of colloquial evidence of people having been banned/blocked for posting, albeit tasteless, anti-Trump or anti-Christian content.

However, I do agree that Congress does, in general, requests too much from to many. There's a middle ground, somewhere, where Gab could have offered to cooperate, while still maintaining their stance.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#58

Post by mc32 »

minikites wrote: post #50
drewrv wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What consequences should there be for exercising the right to free speech? What say aclu?

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#59

Post by allsystemsgo »

pauldavis wrote: post #36

Wow, look at the previous post on that site, from the same guy: "They are rigging elections, they are botching troop withdrawals to flood western countries with refugees, the American border is being invaded by hundreds of thousands of people, they are buying up single family homes and pricing you out of the market, they are printing endless money and inflating your currency."

I mean, he’s using his first amendment rights. That’s the point. What does his prior comments have to do with this?

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#60

Post by rscoots »

criley2 wrote: post #46
fragileone wrote: post #9

> 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 ri…

>that Facebook and Twitter should not be forced to support insurrection and violence masquerading as free speech.

Where is "force" coming into this other than various government demands and threats?

Post reply on HN