Conservative social media site Gab BANNED from three Banks in three weeks due to media smears

[hislegacy]

You can't sue someone who damages on the basis of "who cares."

That is true. If it we possible to do it, Hillary would have been shred out of existence by the families of the Benghazi victims.

 

[TLK Valentine]

But apparently someone's opinion means so much that it's okay to force others from the marketplace and that's okay with you.

Who's being forced from the Marketplace? Gab exists; they've got money.

If they want more money, they're going to have to stop begging for it and actually do something to earn it.

 

[TLK Valentine]

That is true. If it we possible to do it, Hillary would have been shred out of existence by the families of the Benghazi victims.

Who?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Not true. I've been punished plenty of times without breaking any law or rule. Nobody does Civics 101 anymore.

Normally, I'd ask for details, but I wouldn't want to give you the wrong impression.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Who's being forced from the Marketplace? Gab exists; they've got money.

If they want more money, they're going to have to stop begging for it and actually do something to earn it.

They aren't begging for money... the second tier and up members of Gab pay for their service on gab... three banks closing Gab bank accounts so they can't deposit said monies or pay for the services they have to pay for (employees etc) is an attempt to shut down their business by any means possible, after all other methods of shutting them down failed.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I already posted one example.

From what I can see, you shared a comparison between traffic at Gab to sites like NBC and the WSJ. Since this is a thread about social media sites, I assumed your assertion was that a site like Gab is outperforming a platform that is actually a comparable service, like Twitter. Which is laughable, but go ahead and prove it, if you think you can.

If however, you really did mean to say only that Gab outperformed legacy news sites in January, that's not exactly a profound observation. My wife's science blog probably outperforms NBC at this point.

Furthermore, January of this year is precisely the time and cultural context you'd expect to see an uptick in traffic to a site like Gab. It's hardly indicative of sustained success.

I know all of this, and I'm just me. So just imagine what someone knows who has millions of dollars worth of market research at their disposal. That's who's making these decisions.

So is that all, or did you have something else?

 

[TLK Valentine]

They aren't begging for money... the second tier and up members of Gab pay for their service on gab... three banks closing Gab bank accounts so they can't deposit said monies or pay for the services they have to pay for (employees etc) is an attempt to shut down their business by any means possible, after all other methods of shutting them down failed.

Before I ask for "proof" which I know won't be forthcoming, let me ask your opinion on motive.

What do the banks gain by shutting down Gab?

 

[Albion]

We could always return to discussing the topic of this thread.

 

[Tiberius Lee]

Let me answer this for you. As a born-again Christian, a son of missionary. If I were the baker, not only I would bake the cake, I would bake it free and invite the couple to come to my shop again after the wedding.

Why ?

Because I believe homosexuality is sin, homosexual lifestyle is sin. But I can’t witness the couple and share the Good News of Jesus if I condemn them and throw them away from my shop. If I want them to come to Christ , I will dine with them, brake bread with them and may be , may be I will have chance to share the gospel with them, rest I leave up to Holy Spirit.

So yea , as a Christian I think baker was wrong, and he doesn’t understand how Christianity works.

That would be a matter of tactics, then. It wouldn't be about right vs. wrong.

It’s not a tactic, it is Christian living

1 Peter 3:15

But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,


Matthew 5:16

In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.

 

[Albion]

It’s not a tactic, it is Christian living

Your description made it out to be a matter of tactics. That isn't to say that one such course of action wouldn't be more in keeping with Scripture than another, but it's still a matter of how to maximize one's chances of success when appealing to non-believers.

"If I want them to come to Christ , I will dine with them, brake bread with them and may be , may be I will have chance to share the gospel with them...."

 

[TLK Valentine]

We could always return to discussing the topic of this thread.

Fair enough. Three banks closed their accounts with Gab.

Why? We don't know.
Does it matter? Unless someone can prove the banks did something illegal, no.

Federal banking laws and regulations don't address closing accounts; such regulations, if any, would exist on the state level.
Generally speaking, however, when you deposit money in a bank, you are entering into a contract with them -- one which either party can cancel at any time.
Generally speaking, of course, once the decision is made to closeout the account, the bank has to return any monies deposited... I'm assuming that happened at all three banks?

So unless someone's willing to post:

1: The regulations, if any, of the relevant states regarding the closing of bank accounts,
2: An example of what the banks did that runs afoul of any of those regulations,

...then I'm afraid we've got a big ol' nothingburger here.

 

[Hammster]

That doesn't explain much of anything.

You asked a "What if?" question before, so, at the risk of Godwinning the discussion, it's my turn now:

What it, instead of merely a Right-Wing sounding board, Gab was full-blown, straight-up Neo-Nazi? Swastika logos, petitions to reopen Auschwitz, "6MWE" merchandising, "Sieg Heil," the whole nine yards?

The numbers are all the same, but the message is... different. Would we be arguing the morality of the banks taking a hard pass on lending capital, or does morality only come into play for political opinions we agree with?

Your question actually makes my point. The decision to not do business, while possibly having legal consequences, is in reality a moral decision. So the baker in Colorado can make a moral decision, and a bank can make a moral decision. So legalities aside, the baker and the banks are either both right or they are both wrong.

 

[TLK Valentine]

So legalities aside, the baker and the banks are either both right or they are both wrong.

Only if we accept the existence of an objective morality. We do not.

Since we have different sets of moral values, we have different answers. Speaking only for myself, I consider any moral code that gives more consideration to a Neo-Nazi than it does to a gay man something I'm going to take a hard pass on.

 

[SimplyMe]

Beyond the name calling an accusations and filtered cuss word - these conservative sites were financially out performing the liberal counter parts. They were more popular and produced greater income. That is not an example of driving business away.

I'd like to see support for this also. Your previous comparison of CNN and MSNBC are not comparisons of "the liberal counter parts" as they are news organizations, not social media sites. So please provide evidence that they are more popular. Of course, you specific claim here is they are "financially out performing" -- please show us this. Number of subscribers does not equal profit. Amazon, though extremely popular, went a decade, or so, without turning a profit. So, where is your evidence that Gab is financially outperforming these left wing sites?

Next, the "right wing" isn't being silenced, as a general rule. I have a high school friend who routinely posts these right wing "memes" on Facebook, most of them not strictly true (exaggerations and comedic falsehoods). Google frequently recommends Fox News content to me, both news articles and YouTube videos. Somehow, I don't see them getting "cancelled" -- my friend is still on Facebook and I still see him repost lots of things from other right wing individuals and organizations. Fox and other Right Wing sites are not only still on Google and YouTube but still be recommended. This "right wing" cancel does not actually exist -- at least not in the way you are trying to claim.

Now, as for Gab, I'll admit I know little about it. If I go to Wikipedia, I am told, "Widely described as a haven for extremists including neo-Nazis, white supremacists, white nationalists, the alt-right, and QAnon conspiracy theorists, it has attracted users and groups who have been banned from other social media and users seeking alternatives to mainstream social media platforms.[9][10][11][21] Gab says it promotes free speech, individual liberty, and "the free flow of information online", though these statements have been criticized as being a shield for its alt-right and extremist ecosystem.[11][19][22][23] Antisemitism is prominent in the site's content, and the company itself has engaged in antisemitic commentary on Twitter.[25][31] Researchers note that Gab has been "repeatedly linked to radicalization leading to real-world violent events".[32]"

Now, it is possible that Wikipedia is wrong -- though you notice they do provide sources for the claims (with the footnotes). So it seems a bit ironic that we have people defending what allegedly is an anti-Semitic site by using Nazi references. It also, assuming that bank executives are not familiar with what Gab is, but are being told the same type of information, might not want their banks associated with that type of company.

 

[Hammster]

Only if we accept the existence of an objective morality. We do not.

Since we have different sets of moral values, we have different answers. Speaking only for myself, I consider any moral code that gives more consideration to a Neo-Nazi than it does to a gay man something I'm going to take a hard pass on.

There’s either an objective morality, or no morality, only preferences. So while you can say something is wrong, is not grounded in anything and is just your preference.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

There’s either an objective morality, or no morality, only preferences. So while you can say something is wrong, is not grounded in anything and is just your preference.

It's off topic, but I can't let this go.

If I say something is wrong, it is grounded in the objectively quantifiable standard of harm vs wellbeing. That has nothing to do with my preference, as I have no control over what is harmful, nor what increases wellbeing. These things just are what they are.

Now, as to whether that ought to be adopted as the standard, that will always come down to a value judgement, or "preference" if you prefer. Values are necessarily subjective. "Objective value" is an oxymoron.

Which is true whether or not a god exists.

 

[hislegacy]

My wife's science blog probably outperforms NBC at this point.

I have no doubt about that, very few people who are in their right mind follow NBC, CBS or any of the MSM that have proven they have fallen far from the truth. It is why CNN was looking to sell.

AT&T reportedly looking to sell CNN after 'hit' from 'hating Trump': Gasparino

 

[Hammster]

It's off topic, but I can't let this go.

If I say something is wrong, it is grounded in the objectively quantifiable standard of harm vs wellbeing. That has nothing to do with my preference, as I have no control over what is harmful, nor what increases wellbeing. These things just are what they are.

Now, as to whether that ought to be adopted as the standard, that will always come down to a value judgement, or "preference" if you prefer. Values are necessarily subjective. "Objective value" is an oxymoron.

Which is true whether or not a god exists.

Who is defining “harm” and “well-being”?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Who is defining “harm” and “well-being”?

As is the case with all language, we are, of course. We're not always going to agree, nor can will we always quantify it perfectly, but we don't have to know everything to know some things. Drinking a pint of motor oil, for example, will objectively and quantifiably do you harm. No appeal to anything supernatural is necessary to know that. The labels, as with all language, are subjective. But the material effects of harm and wellbeing aren't.

Thankfully, everyone generally does agree, except in areas where there is room for nuance, and except for sociopaths, who are extremely rare.

But if your criticism boils down to "your moral philosophy wouldn't convince a sociopath", boy do I have some disappointing news for you - neither would yours. Lucky for both of us, it is not the job of any moral philosophy to convince a sociopath.

And again, gods are utterly irrelevant to all of this. Invoking one will not clear the is/ought gap for you. One could exist, or not, and it wouldn't make the slightest difference to the fact that value judgements are necessarily subjective. Even granting that your god exists, and that he has a moral standard, and that you can accurately glean what it is, that still tells you nothing at all about why that standard ought necessarily be adopted. To get there, you have to make a value judgement.

 

[Hammster]

As is the case with all language, we are, of course. We're not always going to agree, nor can will we always quantify it perfectly, but we don't have to know everything to know some things. Drinking a pint of motor oil, for example, will objectively and quantifiably do you harm. No appeal to anything supernatural is necessary to know that. The labels, as with all language, are subjective. But the material effects of harm and wellbeing aren't.

Thankfully, everyone generally does agree, except in areas where there is room for nuance, and except for sociopaths, who are extremely rare.

But if your criticism boils down to "your moral philosophy wouldn't convince a sociopath", boy do I have some disappointing news for you - neither would yours. Lucky for both of us, it is not the job of any moral philosophy to convince a sociopath.

And again, gods are utterly irrelevant to all of this. Invoking one will not clear the is/ought gap for you. One could exist, or not, and it wouldn't make the slightest difference to the fact that value judgements are necessarily subjective. Even granting that your god exists, and that he has a moral standard, and that you can accurately glean what it is, that still tells you nothing at all about why that standard ought necessarily be adopted. To get there, you have to make a value judgement.

Value judgements have already been made by the King of the universe. So we ought to obey our King.