Gab has certainly carved out a niche for some of the worst speech on the internet, including at the very least the announcement of terrorist activity (see Tree of Life, New Zealand massacres) if not the wholesale coordination of it. I don't think we can have a serious discussion about free speech without acknowledging that members of these groups have moved along a path from speech to actions that include mass murder.
On the other hand if we're serious about free speech absolutism, this is probably the best case scenario. Federated Mastadon instances should have the option of blocking harassment from Gab users. Allow them to have their free speech, but the rest of online society should have the option to shun them - a real-world dynamic that is not well reflected on platforms like twitter _because_ of centralization. Rather than hopelessly petitioning Jack to ban the nazis, users + communities should be empowered to do it themselves.
Those focused on Gab's audience should realize this kind of attempt is the best hope for a global migration off of twitter to a decentralized service. (Which to me, would be a good thing.)
If it was ever going to happen at this point, it would probably be by venture backed company addressing an alienated audience from the platform who is incentivized enough to switch platforms, building a good UX around a decentralized alternative, and then hoping you can get enough critical mass for network effects to kick in. In the limit, the alt-right focus of Gab will eventually dilute away if the edges of the network get built up and Gab is just another (big) node in the network -- nascent services have an audience focus to get traction that self-evidently goes away as they reach global scale. You don't have to like their choice of initial audience, but this strategic execution certainly seems one worth keeping an eye on, not just to see if the migration starts to happen at a larger scale but also because if they validate the strategy other companies can target similar niche audiences.
In terms of value, the software IP of social networking companies is dwarfed by their network, their brand, and their operational capacity. Just getting code doesn't get you any of these. Investors should be pleased they are not re-inventing the wheel.
In spite of the fact that Gab is a known cess pool (cis pool?), I funded it because we need more alternatives to the big social networks. I would have funded Tor and 4chan had I the opportunity many years ago.
Not too long ago this was a classical liberal position. Today free speech is passé. Guess I'm just old fashioned.
I'm happy to see that Gab is switching to Mastodon. I think it will increase the survivability of the platform. They've struggled under the engineering challenges of scaling a social network. Mastodon fans should be happy that this may mean an influx of hosts and developers.
Presumably, they're more irritated by the fact that the social network they invested in is a ghost town populated by bots and spammers† punctuated by virulent white supremacy. As I'm fond of pointing out, even the Gab accounts that post inspirational landscape photography and "hang in there" photos are, when you dig into their post history, white supremacists. I'd have to imagine anyone who gave a material amount of money to Gab is already comfortable enabling the kind of forum that gave rise to the Tree of Life shooting. But I can't imagine any investor being OK with a moribund social network.
The fact that, in 2019, you can't post on Gab without effectively declaring an affinity for white supremacy (whether you agree or not, that's certainly the message you'd broadcast by doing so) can't help user acquisition either.
† It's been a minute since I looked, but all the accounts I had there, none of which have ever interacted with the site, seem to be, err, popular with the ladies in my area just looking for a good time.
> “Moving to the ActivityPub protocol as our base allows us to get into mobile App Stores without even having to submit and get approval of our own apps, whether Apple and Google like it or not.“
The perils (or benefits?) of open protocols.
Existing mastodon/pleroma clients will be able to connect to Gab by adding a server setting.
Now I wonder if mastodon client app developers will start filtering the allowed servers users can put in...
> Now I wonder if mastodon client app developers will start filtering the allowed servers users can put in...
This is not the duty of client applications. Banning instances is the duty of the operators of individual instances, and the instance(s) on which you have your account(s) are the instance(s) whose blocking policy affects you. This is a feature.
Most sane instances on the Fediverse already ban extremist and alt-right content, and Gab will be no different in that case - just another entry on the blacklist, next to https://freespeechextremist.com/ and https://rapefeminists.network and other instances who shamelessly abuse the right to free speech.
Of course, he has no authority over mobile apps, so it remains up to app creators to decide. I believe there are three apps that share the majority of users (Fedilab, Tusky, Mast). Most popular instances will probably stop federating with them as soon as they can.
EDIT: Fedilab's creator already expressed that he'll do so to avoid the chance of being banned from the app store.
While apple does have some 'technology bars' you have to clear to get into their store. You can't use private APIs in the Apple frameworks for example. There are also 'content' bars that have to be surmounted. I don't think just because they use activity pub or whatever protocol that apple is going to roll over and play nice.
Their whole social network is literally a garbage fire, Apple doesn't want to associate their brand with garbage fires. I expect Gab management is in for a rude awakening.
The conclusion I always seem to come to is you eventually want to be able to trust those within your network. I believe that requires some level of initial openness to prove who you are to a personally selected authority you decide to trust, who can verify your identity, and then allow you to communicate/engage with your real name or one-to-many pseudonyms, so if your actions are outside whatever rules exist for that network are violated then you could get a temporary timeout ("sit in the corner and think about what you did"), to permanent ban, to if it is considered criminal by society then reporting the person to appropriate authorities; we can't have inherent fear and distrust a chain of command, there is good in the world - we of course must stand strong, strongly together, and stand guard in order to fight against abuse of power, inauthentic behaviour - and so on - in chain of commands.
How will users of the Gab network know if it is INSERT_NATION_NAME agents, paid and incentivized to manipulate them and cause unrest in a societal structure we call democracy? Perhaps they're not even thinking or caring about it and its consequences, perhaps they're even simply happy they have a helping hand?
From what we've seen it takes very few bad actors to infiltrate a nation's foundational structures once the atmosphere of a population is disenfranchised enough, once we're disconnected and disengaged enough, and that has been accelerated by the cheap economies of scale the internet has afforded.
At the end what I hope for is that security services of democracies are being intelligent and allocating resources to fully and carefully infiltrating these groups (carefully as to not escalate the situation) to know who those who are involved is: this of course comes down to potential overreach, which must be addressed not because you may more easily know/discover who bad actors are - but because it may be bad actors who actually someday may get hold or access to these systems.
> Now I wonder if mastodon client app developers will start filtering the allowed servers users can put in...
Any action of that kind would only fuel the alt-right persecution complex. Servers however do filtering all the time already, and that's how the Gab folks can be left out of view of the rest of the world.
Surely there will be some client apps on F-Droid (and 'fringe' ones on iOS) that won't include any such restrictions. But I agree that the most popular apps might be highly tempted to enforce them, out of image concerns.
Oh, the Mastodon community is going to be ticked about this... Purism said Librem One's server wasn't going to police speech, and they were upset about it. Gab is a whole different level.
I think ActivityPub has huge potential to be a way for communities of disparate views and perspectives to exist out there, and two distinct and very opposing groups have grasped onto it: People who want space spaces who don't think mainstream platforms moderate enough, and the alt-right and free speech crowd.
In the long run, I think you'll see a lot of ActivityPub servers, but two distinct federations, with very few links between them: One radically liberal and one radically conservative.
> People who want space spaces who don't think mainstream platforms moderate enough, and the alt-right and free speech crowd.
I've never really understood the 'safe spaces' line of argument. I'm a 30 year old white male, and whenever I log onto YouTube I see nothing but recommendations trying to force me down the alt-right rabbit hole.
Sure, Twitter has booted off a few high profile people on the alt right but I don't think I've ever seen anyone argue that the debate on Twitter isn't pretty robust.
Where's the censorship? And how attractive is a community of people only for people who have been kicked off larger platforms?
I run a Mastodon instance. This morning I blocked Purism's server for openly declaring that they plan to be free-speech absolutists who will not bother with any kind of moderation at all, which my years on the net has made me feel is akin to founding a city and declaring you will not have a sewer. This afternoon I preemptively blocked a couple guesses at what Gab's instance will be named. If and when I hear that Gab's instance is actually running and is using a name that doesn't match my guesses, I'll block that one too.
It's really not a big thing to me. I've been blocking Pleromas run by people with anime girl avatars who like to post swastikas for the entire time I've been running an instance. This is just a bigger one.
Your theory about how this will sort out in terms of federation topology matches mine.
As much as I hate the bad parts of Gab, I am glad they are standing up to their principles of being a truly free speech social network.
The other social networks just love to censor everybody they disagree with, even a particular orange looking website.
I am also excited and glad they are utilising open source software as well. (This was bound to happen sooner or later) This can make activitypub & decentralised networks mainstream.
I don't share any such appreciation for Gab. IMO, "free speech" in this case was a thinly veiled excuse for white supremacism, which has plenty of other homes on the internet. The developers of Gab chose to devote substantial portions of their lives to creating a platform for people who promote ethnic cleansing and the suppression of minorities. I don't think it's possible to do that without your eyes wide open, and I think that makes it a profoundly evil project.
Gab is not a free speech social network. Gab is a white supremacy social network. Gab has actively courted white supramcists[0], white supremacists make up the vast majority of their userbase[1].
I understand and respect your deep support of free speech. But please, take a step back here and think about what you are saying you are glad about.
Are you really glad a group of people decided to roll up their sleeves and build a platform for white supremacists? Is that really an admirable use of someone's time, energy, and expertise?
I tried to find some remotely interesting content on that site, all I found was boomer political rambling and bile.
If they do this, I'll be making sure I blacklist their instances. While there are plenty of free-speech oriented or even right wing mastodon instances, the signal to noise ratio on these is pretty good and there is actually content worth engaging with.
> there are plenty of free-speech oriented or even right wing mastodon instances, the signal to noise ratio on these is pretty good and there is actually content worth engaging with.
Good. This will make an excellent test of the ability of Mastodon servers and users to ostracize malicious actors, and a solid driver for new features in this area of development.
Regardless of how you feel about the Gab folks in particular, this is great news that clearly shows the power of the federated web in enabling, empowering and preserving diverse audiences.
Maybe now they'll stop concern-trolling about the inevitable slippery slope into an Orwellian fascist nightmare the world will descend into every time a site bans them. They have their own playground where they can be as racist and edgy as they want.
I had heard about Gab but never visited the site before. I just spent 30 seconds perusing the trending feed. I saw the following:
1. a video of a man being shot and killed during an armed robbery
2. 3 anti islam posts
3. the usual pro trump propaganda
4. a meme warning about the evils of feminism urging women to get back to their "place" in the family.
Gab is a festering pile of trash. Anyone responsible for making any technical decisions on it should be ashamed of themselves.
I mean Tor is used for some pretty bad stuff. Much of the dark net, if not most of the dark net is pretty heinous. Definitely worse than Gab. Do you feel similarly about Tor developers?
The way I see it building platforms for detested people is a pretty good canary in the coalmine. If Internet technologies aren't resilient enough to keep the most hated people in the world online, then that's a pretty bad sign that those technologies wouldn't stand up to motivated state actors.
I don't like most of the content you mention, but I still don't understand your pro-censorship viewpoint.
What's your goal here? Do you honestly think that preventing these people from having a public voice will make them disappear? Or do you simply want to brush them under the carpet so you can pretend they don't exist?
I think a much better approach is to allow free speech, and to spend some of our time kindly and empathetically trying to understand these people so we can address the underlying issues that cause them to believe what they believe. That's what Martin Luther King did, if you read his more theoretical writings. And I think it's what we should be trying to do today. Gutting free speech isn't the solution.
Every time someone sets out to create a completely unmoderated free speech platform, it immediately becomes an object lesson in why people moderate platforms.
The moment I clicked on this link, without even browsing, I was greeted with a recommendation to follow an account with a racial slur in the name. No thanks.
The people who post those things also use the internet, email, chat apps, social media and everything else. At some point you have to accept that people can say and do what they want and only they are responsible for it.
Gab is no different than any other social media site in that what you see is a function of who you follow, but gab has no moderation at all so you will see things you don’t like more often. It is what it is, but it always seems strange to me to blame the platform for its users.
The darkness is only ever undone by shining a light. By all means, people of reasonable sense should take a moment to look at Gab and realize what counter-factual nonsense it is, because banning it or censoring it will only make it more powerful.
>Moving to the ActivityPub protocol as our base allows us to get into mobile App Stores without even having to submit and get approval of our own apps, whether Apple and Google like it or not
They also had the option of creating an ActivityPub compatible API, no? But yes I guess it's easier this way.
Having said that I wonder if they'll allow federation to happen. Most Mastodon instances restrict and censor speech so they will probably add Gab to the blocklist immediately but it would be cool if they could federate with other free speech instances. But then, what would be the point of using Gab instead of just other Mastodon instance?
> what would be the point of using Gab instead of just other Mastodon instance?
This question answers itself. "Gab" is a brand name. Other Mastadon instances are not. People will join the brand name, the underlying technology is irrelevant.
I first heard of Gab when big social media sites were accused of censoring conservatives during the 2016 election. One of the idea of Gab is if you don't like what people say you can block them and don't visit their profile...
So for example many social networks banned Alex Jones... With Gab if you don't like what he says, you don't have to follow him... So instead of the site itself trying to censor people, the users can censor things themselves. I believe the only thing Gab censors is if the content itself is illegal in some way, but other than that they support free speech giving users more choices and freedom.
"Gab is an English-language social media website, launched publicly in 2017, known for its mainly far-right user base.[9] The site has been described as "extremist friendly"[10] or a "safe haven"[11] for neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right.[10] ... Antisemitism is a prominent part of the site's content[24] and the platform itself has engaged in antisemitic commentary.[13][25]" - and so on.
I'm curious how the existing Mastodon users feel about this.
[+] [-] jtr1|6 years ago|reply
On the other hand if we're serious about free speech absolutism, this is probably the best case scenario. Federated Mastadon instances should have the option of blocking harassment from Gab users. Allow them to have their free speech, but the rest of online society should have the option to shun them - a real-world dynamic that is not well reflected on platforms like twitter _because_ of centralization. Rather than hopelessly petitioning Jack to ban the nazis, users + communities should be empowered to do it themselves.
[+] [-] gfodor|6 years ago|reply
If it was ever going to happen at this point, it would probably be by venture backed company addressing an alienated audience from the platform who is incentivized enough to switch platforms, building a good UX around a decentralized alternative, and then hoping you can get enough critical mass for network effects to kick in. In the limit, the alt-right focus of Gab will eventually dilute away if the edges of the network get built up and Gab is just another (big) node in the network -- nascent services have an audience focus to get traction that self-evidently goes away as they reach global scale. You don't have to like their choice of initial audience, but this strategic execution certainly seems one worth keeping an eye on, not just to see if the migration starts to happen at a larger scale but also because if they validate the strategy other companies can target similar niche audiences.
[+] [-] gargron|6 years ago|reply
[1]: https://thinkprogress.org/social-network-that-caters-to-whit...
[+] [-] gfodor|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ryanmarsh|6 years ago|reply
Not too long ago this was a classical liberal position. Today free speech is passé. Guess I'm just old fashioned.
I'm happy to see that Gab is switching to Mastodon. I think it will increase the survivability of the platform. They've struggled under the engineering challenges of scaling a social network. Mastodon fans should be happy that this may mean an influx of hosts and developers.
[+] [-] tptacek|6 years ago|reply
The fact that, in 2019, you can't post on Gab without effectively declaring an affinity for white supremacy (whether you agree or not, that's certainly the message you'd broadcast by doing so) can't help user acquisition either.
† It's been a minute since I looked, but all the accounts I had there, none of which have ever interacted with the site, seem to be, err, popular with the ladies in my area just looking for a good time.
[+] [-] Proven|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] javagram|6 years ago|reply
The perils (or benefits?) of open protocols.
Existing mastodon/pleroma clients will be able to connect to Gab by adding a server setting.
Now I wonder if mastodon client app developers will start filtering the allowed servers users can put in...
[+] [-] phoe-krk|6 years ago|reply
This is not the duty of client applications. Banning instances is the duty of the operators of individual instances, and the instance(s) on which you have your account(s) are the instance(s) whose blocking policy affects you. This is a feature.
Most sane instances on the Fediverse already ban extremist and alt-right content, and Gab will be no different in that case - just another entry on the blacklist, next to https://freespeechextremist.com/ and https://rapefeminists.network and other instances who shamelessly abuse the right to free speech.
[+] [-] r3bl|6 years ago|reply
That's precisely what Mastodon's creator suggested earlier today: https://mastodon.social/@Gargron/102184195834215862
Of course, he has no authority over mobile apps, so it remains up to app creators to decide. I believe there are three apps that share the majority of users (Fedilab, Tusky, Mast). Most popular instances will probably stop federating with them as soon as they can.
EDIT: Fedilab's creator already expressed that he'll do so to avoid the chance of being banned from the app store.
[+] [-] sleepybrett|6 years ago|reply
Their whole social network is literally a garbage fire, Apple doesn't want to associate their brand with garbage fires. I expect Gab management is in for a rude awakening.
[+] [-] loceng|6 years ago|reply
How will users of the Gab network know if it is INSERT_NATION_NAME agents, paid and incentivized to manipulate them and cause unrest in a societal structure we call democracy? Perhaps they're not even thinking or caring about it and its consequences, perhaps they're even simply happy they have a helping hand?
From what we've seen it takes very few bad actors to infiltrate a nation's foundational structures once the atmosphere of a population is disenfranchised enough, once we're disconnected and disengaged enough, and that has been accelerated by the cheap economies of scale the internet has afforded.
At the end what I hope for is that security services of democracies are being intelligent and allocating resources to fully and carefully infiltrating these groups (carefully as to not escalate the situation) to know who those who are involved is: this of course comes down to potential overreach, which must be addressed not because you may more easily know/discover who bad actors are - but because it may be bad actors who actually someday may get hold or access to these systems.
[+] [-] pgeorgi|6 years ago|reply
Any action of that kind would only fuel the alt-right persecution complex. Servers however do filtering all the time already, and that's how the Gab folks can be left out of view of the rest of the world.
[+] [-] 0815test|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ocdtrekkie|6 years ago|reply
I think ActivityPub has huge potential to be a way for communities of disparate views and perspectives to exist out there, and two distinct and very opposing groups have grasped onto it: People who want space spaces who don't think mainstream platforms moderate enough, and the alt-right and free speech crowd.
In the long run, I think you'll see a lot of ActivityPub servers, but two distinct federations, with very few links between them: One radically liberal and one radically conservative.
[+] [-] kristianc|6 years ago|reply
I've never really understood the 'safe spaces' line of argument. I'm a 30 year old white male, and whenever I log onto YouTube I see nothing but recommendations trying to force me down the alt-right rabbit hole.
Sure, Twitter has booted off a few high profile people on the alt right but I don't think I've ever seen anyone argue that the debate on Twitter isn't pretty robust.
Where's the censorship? And how attractive is a community of people only for people who have been kicked off larger platforms?
[+] [-] egypturnash|6 years ago|reply
It's really not a big thing to me. I've been blocking Pleromas run by people with anime girl avatars who like to post swastikas for the entire time I've been running an instance. This is just a bigger one.
Your theory about how this will sort out in terms of federation topology matches mine.
[+] [-] davexunit|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] kgraves|6 years ago|reply
The other social networks just love to censor everybody they disagree with, even a particular orange looking website.
I am also excited and glad they are utilising open source software as well. (This was bound to happen sooner or later) This can make activitypub & decentralised networks mainstream.
[+] [-] jtr1|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] graenxa|6 years ago|reply
I understand and respect your deep support of free speech. But please, take a step back here and think about what you are saying you are glad about.
Are you really glad a group of people decided to roll up their sleeves and build a platform for white supremacists? Is that really an admirable use of someone's time, energy, and expertise?
[0] https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/30/tech/gab-anti-semitic-speech-...
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/10/31/silicon...
[+] [-] Iamhisalt|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] amiga-workbench|6 years ago|reply
If they do this, I'll be making sure I blacklist their instances. While there are plenty of free-speech oriented or even right wing mastodon instances, the signal to noise ratio on these is pretty good and there is actually content worth engaging with.
[+] [-] rmtech|6 years ago|reply
any recommendations?
[+] [-] Millennium|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 0815test|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] krapp|6 years ago|reply
Obligatory xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1357/
[+] [-] vikingcaffiene|6 years ago|reply
1. a video of a man being shot and killed during an armed robbery 2. 3 anti islam posts 3. the usual pro trump propaganda 4. a meme warning about the evils of feminism urging women to get back to their "place" in the family.
Gab is a festering pile of trash. Anyone responsible for making any technical decisions on it should be ashamed of themselves.
[+] [-] dcolkitt|6 years ago|reply
The way I see it building platforms for detested people is a pretty good canary in the coalmine. If Internet technologies aren't resilient enough to keep the most hated people in the world online, then that's a pretty bad sign that those technologies wouldn't stand up to motivated state actors.
[+] [-] kerkeslager|6 years ago|reply
What's your goal here? Do you honestly think that preventing these people from having a public voice will make them disappear? Or do you simply want to brush them under the carpet so you can pretend they don't exist?
I think a much better approach is to allow free speech, and to spend some of our time kindly and empathetically trying to understand these people so we can address the underlying issues that cause them to believe what they believe. That's what Martin Luther King did, if you read his more theoretical writings. And I think it's what we should be trying to do today. Gutting free speech isn't the solution.
[+] [-] PhasmaFelis|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DominoTree|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] saagarjha|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] manigandham|6 years ago|reply
Gab is no different than any other social media site in that what you see is a function of who you follow, but gab has no moderation at all so you will see things you don’t like more often. It is what it is, but it always seems strange to me to blame the platform for its users.
[+] [-] vorpalhex|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] lukifer|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] api|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] rmtech|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] iamshs|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nicky0|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] travisoneill1|6 years ago|reply
This post: HN users hate it when things they don't like manage to get around corporate and government censorship
[+] [-] xrjpi|6 years ago|reply
They also had the option of creating an ActivityPub compatible API, no? But yes I guess it's easier this way.
Having said that I wonder if they'll allow federation to happen. Most Mastodon instances restrict and censor speech so they will probably add Gab to the blocklist immediately but it would be cool if they could federate with other free speech instances. But then, what would be the point of using Gab instead of just other Mastodon instance?
[+] [-] coldpie|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] linuxftw|6 years ago|reply
> what would be the point of using Gab instead of just other Mastodon instance?
This question answers itself. "Gab" is a brand name. Other Mastadon instances are not. People will join the brand name, the underlying technology is irrelevant.
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Keverw|6 years ago|reply
So for example many social networks banned Alex Jones... With Gab if you don't like what he says, you don't have to follow him... So instead of the site itself trying to censor people, the users can censor things themselves. I believe the only thing Gab censors is if the content itself is illegal in some way, but other than that they support free speech giving users more choices and freedom.
[+] [-] loceng|6 years ago|reply
"Gab is an English-language social media website, launched publicly in 2017, known for its mainly far-right user base.[9] The site has been described as "extremist friendly"[10] or a "safe haven"[11] for neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right.[10] ... Antisemitism is a prominent part of the site's content[24] and the platform itself has engaged in antisemitic commentary.[13][25]" - and so on.
I'm curious how the existing Mastodon users feel about this.