My point exactly.

Which was what?

Let me copy vetbatim: You have at least one alternative. You, the freest people in the world, are not using it. Not enough censorship there.

Right, what do you mean by that? That Americans aren't using it because they prefer censorship, or that they aren't using it because they're dumb, or some third or fourth points? I'm not sure what you mean.

Uhm. I can only guess why we Americans are not using Gab. But I thought I’ve made my guess pretty explicit: yes, I can clearly see and with great uneasiness that Americans prefer censorship. May be I was wrong - what is your thought, what Gab should do with these suprematists?

And my guess is based on some observations. I named one - GOP branch deleting their account.

Here’s the second observation, if you wish. Even more bothering to me. Not so long a go there was a mass protest at SF medical center. About a thousand of hospital workers were demanding that Zuckerberg’s name (paid by him at $25 mln) was removed from the plates. Reason - he is not doing enough to censor Facebook posts.

I was born and grown up and have a nice “living experience” in a totalitarian country. This popular demand for more censorship looks to me like people asking authorities to hang them - and bringing their own ropes and soap to the execution site. Not a nice picture to watch.

Gab should do whatever they are legally required to do under the law and no more. If they want to provide a safe space for white supremacists/conspiracy theorists/whatever, I don’t care. I won’t use it. Me not using their service is not me condoning “censorship” or whatever you think is happening, it’s just me not wanting to use a shitty platform full of shitty people. I don’t like the fact that Visa won’t let sex workers use them as a payment processor either. Just because I am against one thing does not mean I am automatically for another thing.

> If they want to provide a safe space for white supremacists/conspiracy theorists/whatever, I don’t care. I won’t use it.

So, you will use only a platform that does not provide a safe space for white supremacists/conspiracy theorists/whatever ?

Well apparently they won’t let me use it. They censored me for not having views that aligned with theirs.

But also yes, I’m not a fan of white supremacists and I won’t voluntarily use a platform that caters to them. Just like I wouldn’t eat at a “Hitler was great”-themed cafe.

Isn't the point that MikePlacid is making that if a platform does not engage in censorship then it will:

a) have some users who've been censored elsewhere

b) be accused of catering to them, as you have done

c) meanwhile, the majority continues to use censored platforms

Whereas if you and the majority used an uncensored-yet-legal platform:

1) White supremacists would be a tiny minority

2) Everyone could speak freely

3) That would not be catering to white supremacists

Or would it? Based on what you've written above it seems you might claim it would be catering to them by not censoring them.

You've created a circular argument and a vicious cycle on top of it. That does support censorship and it shows that the majority does prefer censorship. Freedom of speech will necessarily entail having speech the majority don't like being around. That's the price of it but it's better than the alternatives.

Did you not see where I said they censored me? I disagreed with a prominent Gab user and posted something that was, by their criteria, “left wing” and I was banned. That is 100% censorship by the criteria he established. How are they not catering to white supremacists etc. if they are banning people for disagreeing? Weren’t they started in order to cater to that demographic as well?

I was also banned from Twitter, and I’m not out crying about it as nothing of value was really lost there either.

Assuming what you say is true (no slight intended, it only means I can't confirm it and haven't seen the exchange), being censored for making a left wing comment does not necessarily imply white supremacists doing it. Left wing comments occasionally get censored on Twitter, too, as you point out.

I've no idea if Gab censors or not as I don't use it but that's different to your argument holding water. I also wonder that if you're banned from Twitter and Gab then you're the one with the problem, and this thread might be a clue as to why.

If you want to call me an asshole, call me an asshole directly instead of “this thread might be a clue why.”

I never said white supremacists were censoring me. I said Gab is full of them and that as a platform, they too censor views that dissent from their majority. So it’s not some free speech wonderland like OP implied. He suggested it as an alternative. I said it’s not really an alternative. The content of what I said to get banned from Twitter or from Gab is irrelevant to my point.

> If you want to call me an asshole, call me an asshole directly instead of “this thread might be a clue why.”

I wasn't suggesting anything of the sort, but your belligerence and unwillingness to accept any other point of view is what I was suggesting, along with the bannings you've brought up.

> I never said white supremacists were censoring me.

Really?

> Did you not see where I said they censored me? > How are they not catering to white supremacists

If you didn't write it then you suggested it to the point where to now claim anything else undermines your argument, as does the goalpost moving.

So, which is it? They're catering to white supremacists or Gab isn't really a free speech paradise. Once you've picked one then perhaps you can form a cogent argument for it. Let me know.

It’s both. I don’t think actual white supremacists are “censoring” me. I think people who saw a way to make money by catering to that demographic are not practicing the “free speech paradise” that they preach. What’s so hard to understand about that?

Also, if I’m belligerent for disagreeing with you, then clearly you are also belligerent for disagreeing with me. You can accuse me of moving goalposts or whatever makes you feel better about it, but i am not meaning to. English is not my first language and it sometimes my point does not shine through the way I would like.

> if I’m belligerent for disagreeing with you, then clearly you are also belligerent for disagreeing with me

Let's get this out of the way, I wasn't suggesting you're belligerent for disagreeing with me, there's plenty of belligerence from you in this thread long before I commented.

> English is not my first language and it sometimes my point does not shine through the way I would like.

As an immigrant who struggles with the local language where I am, I sympathise, I genuinely do. Still, I'd be amazed if I could reach the level you have. Shall we resume disagreeing now?

> I think people who saw a way to make money by catering to that demographic are not practicing the “free speech paradise” that they preach

I'm not sure who censored you now, I've heard talk of community moderators on Gab, was it them? It was not white supremacists that censored you but they're catering to white supremacists? Wouldn't that just cater to conservatives? It's strange because research (from Pew) shows that those on the American left, at least, are less likely to tolerate opposing viewpoints on social media[1].

You also seem to conflate banning with censoring, which it can, but to go straight to a ban seems strange to me - does Gab ban people straight away for left wing comments? I'm almost tempted to post one there and see what happens.

This Forbes article[2] mentions Parler (which is also being accused of catering to white supremacists elsewhere on this page):

> One reason that conservatives may feel at home is because the service has been quick to ban those who joined just to "troll" or otherwise harass those with right-leaning views.

At the moment, regardless of language skill, that would appear to explain your anecdote very well.

[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2014/10/21/political-...

[2] One reason that conservatives may feel at home is because the service has been quick to ban those who joined just to "troll" or otherwise harass those with right-leaning views.

Edit: typo

It's literally not censorship to voluntarily refuse to associate with white supremacists (or to simply have no interest in doing so). I'd assume this is the reason we Americans are not using Gab.

That would hold more water if people were using services that are not heavily censored, or not censored at all. The white supremacists (apparently, I've not used Gab) all used to be on Twitter - were Twitter users associating with them back then? Did everyone stop using Twitter?

The key difference between being banned from Facebook and being hanged by the government is that in one case you die and in the other case you are mildly inconvenienced.

Like you said, you can always go to Gab.

First they came for the facebook posts, I did not speak out because I didn't use facebook.

Then they came for the internet registrars, I did not speak out because I didn't have a website.

Then they came for the payment processors, I did not speak out because I didn't have an online business.

When they came for my bank account there was no where left to speak.

Just to be clear. The “They” coming for the Facebook posts is Mark Zuckerberg, owner of Facebook.

Give me your car. I want to key some stuff into the side of it. If you don’t you’re censoring me.

Facebook operates in California. It’s users are - by Facebook provided user agreement- bound in their relationship with Facebook by California laws.

Now, the constitution of California provides positive right of speech to it’s citizens: Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. See this dot here? no exception for Zuckerbergs. Or your car.

Then, there is courts’ interpretation of this right. It was as following (by memory): if you created a public forum, then you can’t remove people from it for their speech contents only . That’s why California malls can’t remove beggars soliciting money (you car is ok, it’s not a public forum).

Now, as in now, California becomes a one-party state (feels like home, sometimes). The same Supreme Court (but with nowadays judges) decides: is Facebook a public forum? You can guess the answer.

So you agree. I can carve a message into the side your car, and there’s nothing you can do about it.

Nice. I’ve got my knife. Let’s meet up! Afterwards, we’ll swing by the television station and make them broadcast us live, free of charge or control, a six hour lecture about our novel interpretation constitutional law.

How do you fit 4 billion people in your car?

I don’t. I censor them.

That must be a very big car to have enough space for 4 billion people to write whatever they want on it.

They don’t. I censor them

Yeah but you'd need to have enough space for them to write if they want to.

Otherwise you'd be making an argument in bad faith.

They can write small.

Also, since you seem to be new I'll let you know. This isn't bad faith. It's reductio ad absurdum.

So your argument on why facebook with 4 billion users should ban whatever it likes on its platform is that a car that can fit more a dozen people shouldn't be vandalized.

Yes, I can see why your argument is absurd.

No. They’re both private property.

So were people.

I thought we were talking about government compelled speech.

People prefer sanitized spaces.

I prefer sanitized spaces too. I just want to have a sanitizing tool in my own hands - sanitizing what I personally read. But my tool should have no influence on what you will see and read.

Moderation is probably needed. But it should be decentralized.

Decentralized moderation is a fantasy. Do you want to clean every public bathroom before you enter it ? Uncover every troll personally on Twitter every time you log on?

Malign activity (bots and trolls) are organized and at scale, the only way to fight back is at the same scale. Individual users would be helpless.

Not if they were given the same power i.e. moderation tools that Twitter et al have behind the scenes.

Why can't I, for example, set a filter that removes bots based on some confidence value? Or that orders my feeds in the order of my choosing?

Right now I have to use ridiculously blunt instruments and trust in moderation that is well known to be biased and, frankly, useless.

Fair points, but I would argue you aren't describing decentralized moderation so much as centralized moderation tools being made available to users in a transparent way. Which sounds good to me.

> Right, what do you mean by that? That Americans aren't using it because they prefer censorship, or that they aren't using it because they're dumb, or some third or fourth points? I'm not sure what you mean.

This is pretty obtuse as a response to the comment above you:

>>>>>> You have at least one alternative. You, the freest people in the world, are not using it. Not enough censorship there.

What could "Not enough censorship there" mean other than that people want more censorship than Gab provides?

There's a shitload of black/white/muslim supremacists on Twitter too. Twitter is almost exclusively toxicity.

There's normal people on Gab as well. It's nice if you want to talk about taboo topics during controversial times like lockdowns, certain laptops, certain vaccines, etc..

Basically if you want to escape western propaganda.

There are other issues such as criticism of lockdowns, vaccine safety, anthropogenic global warming, central bank digital currencies, investigation of certain incidents like the Las Vegas mass shooting, supporting the Russian side of the Ukraine war, etc that will get you banned on other platforms.

They are all lumped together in the mind of your average CNN viewer as "white supremacy" unfortunately. Sometimes there are weird glitches in the issue lumping, like when people say that Trump is anti-vax even though Trump has been an advocate of the vaccines.

I have a black friend that was almost, sorta, called racist because he said he thinks his house rent in the Berkeley was high because tons of illegal aliens are renting too and driving up demand.

He tried to argue that without the millions of illegals in California, taking atleast a million housing units, rent would be cheaper. But everyone was shocked he could even say that.

Things are getting comical. As if the actual race or color of the millions of people taking up housing is the actual issue.... Not their legal status. If they were a different color or race he's be ok with it?

Also Mexican is not even a race. Same with Muslim. Etc.

The skin color thing was always a strawman. There's slightly different physiology, behavioral tendencies like cultures, which may simply be different (intelligent adaptations by group from their geographical origins).

Nobody thinks an albino African is "White". And when the Tanzanian albino gets chopped into a potion by his non-Albino brothers -- an actual crime predicated upon skin color alone -- would we call it a racial hate crime? We barely even talk about that issue internationally.

so you're going to let the white supremacists monopolize the free internet?

I would rather they didn't but the post I replied to was about one alternative to things - not any of the other alternatives, like federated systems (Mastodon, etc) or even something like IRC that I love dearly. They picked one of the things that is notorious for being full of white supremacists (and also banning people for being "left wing", as was my experience of disagreeing with a prominent Gab user, on Gab, for which my account was banned. So much for "freedom of speech".)

yeah, i know what you mean

they do put in a serious effort though because of how ostracized they are, i can't help but think it will come in handy someday