> We have been smeared by the mainstream media [...] for working with law enforcement to ensure that justice is served for the horrible atrocity committed in Pittsburgh
That's quite an interesting spin.
That's quite an interesting spin.
Gab claim they're being smeared for "defending free expression and individual liberty" AND "working with law enforcement".
People and organisations attempting to shut Gab down, and/or be critical of them, are assuredly not doing so because Gab are working with law enforcement.
That renders Gab's claim spin, as per parent commenter.
As for the 'people and organizations attempting to shut Gab down, or and/or be critical of them', they are 'assuredly not doing so' on the grounds Gab hosted violent anti-Semitic and extremist material. Otherwise they would express equal outrage at the violent anti-Semitic tweets from Louis Farrakhan, one example among many, who uses the exact same rhetoric as the Pittsburgh shooter. The 'mail bomber' Cesar Sayoc Jr. also made numerous violent threats on twitter. In neither case are there calls to shut Twitter down.
They're just trying to stoke the flame. Look at the stuff they're tweeting https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1056266704148262912 https://twitter.com/ClenchedFisk/status/1027690034718224384?...
Meanwhile, Gab was able to provide a complete profile of this individual and confirmation of his identity to the authorities.
This repeatedly has been presented as an achievement. How on earth isn't that the absolute absolute basic thing? That ANY service is going to do?
Bowers also had profiles on Twitter and facebook which were probably just as nasty, but we are not hearing any calls to shut those services down.
Oh, for crying out loud. These are absolutely apples and oranges. Apple refusing to unlock - wasn't about disclosing readily available data; in this case we're talking about public and payments data. Microsoft v US has been mooted by a change of the relevant laws. Wikileaks, wait, what?
> Bowers also had profiles on Twitter and facebook which were probably just as nasty, but we are not hearing any calls to shut those services down.
Yes. Their monitoring isn't great, but they do some. Not comparable.
>That ANY service is going to [provide the data on a suspect to law enforcement]?
Are the aforementioned not services?
>Apple refusing to unlock - wasn't about disclosing readily available data;
They refused to provide information required by the FBI to investigate an extremist attack. And there was data that was not readily available to the public in the Bowers' profile.
> Microsoft v US has been mooted by a change of the relevant laws
So what? It was still data that law enforcement wished to acquire in order to investigate criminal activity, in this case organized crime.
>Wikileaks, wait, what?
I am sure the authorities are very interested in who was responsible for leaking classified information. Something Wikileaks refuses to provide.
>Yes. Their monitoring isn't great, but they do some. Not comparable.
'Not comparable'? Louis Farrakhan's anti-Semitic rants are directly 'comparable' for one, and he is not alone. Twitter's 'monitors' appear to be more concerned with influencing elections than removing extremist content.
Also, try searching Youtube for 'six gorillion' or 'six million lies'. Reporting the content that is revealed appears to be completely ineffective. Again, such 'censorship' as is done is largely concerned with influencing elections.