>our refusal to change our First Amendment-based moderation policy
This seems like a typical misunderstanding of the First Amendment, which only restricts government action.
>Gab has been the subject of a years-long smear campaign by activist groups and boycotted by virtually every technology company of consequence – Amazon, Apple, Coinbase, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, PayPal, Stripe, and Visa included – because of our refusal to change our First Amendment-based moderation policy.
This article is the most reasonably phrased 'Big Tech is violating my 1st Amendment rights' but it is still not valid. It's open to interpretation whether this is attributable to the cause they state.
>The reality of social media content moderation practices today is that large swathes of commonly-held viewpoints and belief systems are systematically discriminated against on the Internet’s largest websites
This is a non-sequitur following discussion of the first amendment.
>American citizens may have freedom of speech, but they find themselves with vanishingly few public forums in which to exercise it fully.
I wonder whether Gab agrees that businesses have a right to refuse service to anyone arbitrarily, such as not making a cake for a gay couple.
>Our web properties are among only a handful on the Internet where Madison’s “general intercourse of sentiments” can presently flow unimpeded by corporate interests, opaquely funded NGOs, and activist groups
I am very skeptical of that claim.
Oh, and I am very open to anyone who would like to explain to me how this is incorrect.
