If Gab is a conservative platform, your next comment "politically neutral platforms or moderators" would not be able to exist right?

The fact that "a conservative" runs a platform doesn't mean it's "a conservative platform". Don't put words in someone's mouth.

The GP said "conservatives try to build their own platform (Gab)".

The parent said "If Gab is a conservative platform".

This is obviously a reasonable way to interpret the GP's sentence. You're also reasonable to disagree with that interpretation, but you're being unreasonably combative when you accuse the parent of putting words in the GP's mouth.

Because arguing something with your bias to make your argument viable is a form of putting words in people's mouth.

> Gab is an English-language social media platform known for its far-right userbase.[8] The site has been widely described as a "safe haven"[9] for extremists including neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right.[10]

From Wikipedia.

OP isn’t putting any words in anyone’s mouth. They are referencing a well known fact about this establishment.

So? The fact that the majority of the userbase is alt-right doesn't make the platform itself conservative.

If tor is known for it's pedophile userbase, does it make the platform itself pedophile?

If the majority of it’s users fit that category then yes.

Then why isn't Tor getting shut down? It's a pedophile platform.

I know why. Because it's not a pedophile platform and Gab is not a conservative platform.

Because the majority of it’s users don’t fit that category.

Earth

No

Why? Majority of Tor users are pedophile.

>If the majority of it’s users fit that category then yes.

One wired article != fact

No

And your reasoning for that? Seriously, playing your word-puzzle is so interesting. I learn so much from you about how to present stupid arguments and get over with it.

Read the thread

Read what thread? can you point a specific thread for me that I can rebut?

Please don't do tedious right-leaning tit-for-tats on HN. I mean right-leaning on the page of course. A pyramid of whitespace to the left is a deadly sign.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I've divided this feedback between the two of you so please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23339809 as well.

Yes

Please don't do this. It damages the site, achieves nothing, and makes you both look bad. What to do instead: be the first to let go.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I've divided the feedback between the two of you so please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23339633 as well.

Thanks dang, apologies. I will be sure to keep that in mind in the future.

Tor is not a platform. Did you even tried to use it?

It's a platform. Why is it not?

I didn't mean to, but "if conservatives try to build their own platform " implies some direction to the platform. they would have said "try to build a platform".

EDIT: my apologies that's what they meant

Gab is not a "conservative" platform, it's a censorship free platform. It was born out of necessity because twitter was deplatforming normal people who just happen to have different political views.

You can go on Gab and post ultra-leftwing stuff, my little pony stuff, circuit board stuff, open an account to follow latest Antonio Banderas news, whatever you want.

> Gab is not a "conservative" platform, it's a censorship free platform.

Gab is not censorship free. They've banned users.

https://twitter.com/willsommer/status/981984571645362176

Censorship free != not banning.

US law states that speech like doxxing are not free speech thus restricting it is not censorship.

They ban porn, too:

https://gab.com/about/tos

"Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, User Contributions must NOT: Be obscene, sexually explicit or pornographic."

Banning a specific portion of a speech is not censorship.

That's a baffling assertion.

There's no inherent human right to be on Twitter, access its contents or contribute to new content. It is private property and you give away the rights to publish your speech, as per their site policies. So removing content or accounts, is not by law censorship in such an arrangement. That people freely choose to use such arrangements and contribute to others' private property, is questionable.

It's a difference on how you view human rights. There are people that think not allowed access to the Internet human rights violation. I think not being allowed to post on twitter because you have an unpopular opinion is a violation of free speech.

A law can be added to protect this right like the right to be forgotten. We didn't think the right to be forgotten was even a right that is valuable to protect but here we are.

There's no right to a platform for free speech. Maybe there should be, but what that should mean is very difficult to assess. Taking a stab at platforms just because they're popular, isn't necessarily fair game.

Twitter and other social media are moderated in several ways. If your opinion is unpopular, it'll likely not be retweeted much, it may be moderated down by users and moderators, your account might even be banned. Private platforms are private, and regulating them would hinder freedoms to create and maintain diversity of such platforms in the future, ie. hinder competing platforms and innovation.

If such platforms become detrimental to society, that of course need to be addressed in some way. Right to be forgotten is a good example trying to balance out some of the imbalances.

It is. The supreme court saw that banning nudity in theaters, thus banning specific portion of speech in specific places is not infringing first amendment.

You have your freedom to enjoy nude in your home but not in theaters due to city regulations. That doesn't mean that the city is censoring.

You're confusing "the censorship is legal" with "the censorship is not censorship".

I don't treat control of the speech that does cross the lines of the first amendment censorship because if it's not protected by the first amendment it's a violation of the law thus it's an act of justice.

Similarly we don't call stopping robbery and murder censorship of our acts.

Pornography is pretty clearly not a violation of the law, so why do you consider Gab's censorship of it not to be censorship?

So they allow kiddy porn? Of course, not. So yes, they are censoring content... What a lie.

>Gab is not a "conservative" platform

This has not been my personal experience when trying to contribute. Also, the founder and original users, in conversation, explicitly labeled it as a place for conservatives. Of course they are careful not to include such language in official user-facing copy.