Live data from Hacker News

Gab.com’s Response to Congress

news.gab.com

191–200 of 254 posts

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#191
post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what's more civil than peacefully protesting?

Radical anti-abortionists also harass and intimidate people (while "peacefully" protesting,) bomb abortion clinics and kill doctors. That's probably what mc32 is referring to.

I think you misunderstood me. By radical I don't mean criminals. I mean people who go to extreme but legal tactics to promote their cause, as you point out, they use intimidating tactics. Personally, I think this works against them. Just like shouting and intimidating people works against antifa.

Non radical anti abortionists are most moms and dads who prefer not to abort but don't go out there and agitate.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should nobody face criticism? The parent didn't imply the user should be banned. The "you hate people for having a different opinion than you" accusation seems to be disproportionately levied against left-ish or anti-Trump sentiment, but pro-Trump sentiment is disproportionately in the flavor of "hating you for having a different opinion", in my opinion.

You are free to log onto Gab and criticize him. That's the whole point.

No, not really, they're pretty quick with the ban hammer against heathens and communists.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#194
post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yesterday. After that, last week, easier; then last year, yet easier; 5 years ago, easier still, and so on. I will not speculate as to when the maximum was reached, but it was somewhere between the creation of the internet and the present.

I would argue that the peak was on reddit, very briefly before the culmination of the Democrat primary in 2016. The descent was a panic response to two populists nearly winning the major party nominations in the US. We can likely reach pre-2016 levels of Internet freedom again. I'm not sure if Gab is a critical piece of that, but they seem to be doing mostly the right things right now (though I would like to see some…

Doubt. Good luck not getting instantly banned on Gab for left wing opinions.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#195
post #84
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?

Good luck posting your doubts about Covid vaccination results on Twitter, FB or YT. You will not even notice how fast your wrongthinking will be detected and removed.

Sadly you are incorrect

Dangerous antivax nonsense is not well moderated on many of those platforms, especially Facebook

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#196

Maybe the question everyone should be asking is: why is there such an insatiable desire among a large part of America for white supremacist and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories? What is the root cause? All of this "political football" seems to just be scraping the surface of what is really going on.

Ask yourself: Is someone a white supremacist simply because he thinks his country ought to defend its borders? That every citizen ought to be given the same opportunities but not be guaranteed the same outcomes? That true racism is the belief that some races are incapable without special help? That true racism is in discriminating against the Asians, Jews, and everyone else who studied hard to do well on their SATs?…

You should really examine why people want to “defend” borders. It’s mostly racism and classism. The most effective way to defend your borders is to improve the lives of the people across the border. Yet… does anyone advocate for that? Nope… We undermine their governments and extract their resources to plunder from them instead. We create instability and allow violent regimes to be created and prosper.

Could always not do that shit and help improve their lives… but not the American way… because we see those people as others who shouldn’t be near us and not like fellow human beings. (And frequently this is a white vs POC thing btw)

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone can easily obtain various forms of anonymous free hosting at the present. What some people don’t seem to understand about the first amendment is that while the government is obligated to not stop you from publishing, no private party is obligated to assist you.

> What some people don’t seem to understand about the first amendment is that while the government is obligated to not stop you from publishing, no private party is obligated to assist you. What some people don't understand about freespeech is that it's a bigger principle then just the 1st amendment protections. Most of us are not arguing that companies ARE violating the law/first amendment. only that political/relig…

> Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant — society collectively, over the separate individuals who compose it — its means of tyrannising are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries.

> Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself.

> Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own.

> There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence: and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism.

~ John Stuart Mill, On Library (1859)

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ask yourself: Is someone a white supremacist simply because he thinks his country ought to defend its borders? That every citizen ought to be given the same opportunities but not be guaranteed the same outcomes? That true racism is the belief that some races are incapable without special help? That true racism is in discriminating against the Asians, Jews, and everyone else who studied hard to do well on their SATs?…

You should really examine why people want to “defend” borders. It’s mostly racism and classism. The most effective way to defend your borders is to improve the lives of the people across the border. Yet… does anyone advocate for that? Nope… We undermine their governments and extract their resources to plunder from them instead. We create instability and allow violent regimes to be created and prosper. Could always no…

I want to defend our borders.

I am very pro-immigration, and I have seen firsthand the crazy hoops that well-qualified people need to jump through to come to this country, and I think those hoops are wrong. I think migrant worker programs are wrong. I think that we, as a country, are wealthy enough to let many people in and that those people will be an asset to our country.

But I still want to defend our borders.

I don't think that there is a dichotomy between wanting strong border protections and also being disappointed in the actions that the US government has taken for 80+ years across the globe (and domestically) in the name of freedom and democracy.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#200
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This, too, seems more free than every before. Not all that long ago you could be fined and imprisoned for things like blasphemy and obscenity, never mind the whole anti-communist "red scare" that lasted for a few decades. There are loads of examples from just a few decades ago that would be unthinkable today. I'm not saying things are perfect or that there aren't any problems, but I feel sometimes the historical pers…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN