Ratting people out to the government is hip now... crazy times.
However, Gab goes further than that and quite explicitly caters to far right hate groups, as detailed in this comment over on ARS:
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2021/03/gab-t...
The American National Socialist shows a huge group of Nazis plus a Swastika in their banner picture, does it really matter then how many followers they have?
Not that it's representative, but it is certainly a "feature" of gab.
That's not cool anymore.
It's certainly not FB's raison d'etre but it has been an ongoing problem that the firm has been reluctant to confront.
They have their free speech already. They go on various platforms, and say whatever they want until people get mad and private companies make a money-based decision to ban them.
According to the libertarian view of the world: this is all working exactly as intended. Everyone in the system is making a private decision and speaking with their wallets.
The far right is general taken to mean ultra nationalists that attack minority groups. Every major social network has hate speech in their terms of service, and very few people complaining about censorship are complaining about enforcement of rules against actual hate speech.
Citation needed. But honestly, it doesn't matter because it doesn't change the fact that this is the libertarian ideal situation. The government is not mandating anything. All "cancel culture" is created from private individuals making their own private decisions, and that includes corporations banning anyone they like for any reason. It's right there in the name "culture". No one is required to do anything, it's just that it's an advantageous decision at the cultural level to do what most people want.
Any suggestion that there is a problem with this is in contradiction to the libertarian idea of free speech.
Likewise. Can you name a single high profile twitter ban that was due to promotion of white supremacy, sexism, or similar?
> But honestly, it doesn't matter because it doesn't change the fact that this is the libertarian ideal situation.
Monopolies are not free markets.
> Can you name a single high profile twitter ban that was due to promotion of white supremacy, sexism, or similar?
Since you only asked for one, I'll give you probably the most clear cut example that can be asked for:
David Duke, well known former KKK grand wizard.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-53608106
There you go, now you have one. If you want more, I'm sure you're more than capable of doing the research yourself.
You coming up with David Duke as an example of a controversial ban is an excellent example of my argument. Was this considered controversial? Who supported Duke remaining on Twitter?
I literally just post about finance on Gab and I've never personally seen anything hateful on there. I'm not saying it doesn't exist - I don't follow those kinds of users anyway - but I've seen plenty of hate on Twitter and I've never felt Gab was particularly hateful or radical.
(Well, to be honest I think cops do deserve respect, when they're doing their job right. Otherwise they deserve consequences.)
Denouncing crimes, especially crimes some people consider to be among the worst possible, against democracy, even when committed by close family members, is purely a matter of personal choice and conscience.