Gab is set to benefit from mainstream social media bans and the closing of Parler

I wonder how people with a left leaning worldview fare in those free-speech loving forums. On the few occassions I post my views (which are far from radical left) on websites like that, I mostly get insults back.

It would appear there are some important lessons being learned by both sides with regards to current happenings in the social media world, that's causing them to shift their views they've held on the topic of "what a company owner can do with the company they own".

Many on the left seem to be seeing some value in a private company being able to set their own ideology-influenced policies (with regards to AWS and Twitter choosing to deplatform people and take down other platforms)

Many on the right are now seeing the drawback of the absolutist mentality of "a company owner should be able to do whatever they want with their company" and the overall drawbacks with certain corporate entities accumulating too much power.

Hopefully the end result is both factions moving toward a reasonable middle-ground on that subject.

ThatRobGuy said:

It would appear there are some important lessons being learned by both sides with regards to current happenings in the social media world, that's causing them to shift their views they've held on the topic of "what a company owner can do with the company they own".

Many on the left seem to be seeing some value in a private company being able to set their own ideology-influenced policies (with regards to AWS and Twitter choosing to deplatform people and take down other platforms)

Many on the right are now seeing the drawback of the absolutist mentality of "a company owner should be able to do whatever they want with their company" and the overall drawbacks with certain corporate entities accumulating too much power.

Hopefully the end result is both factions moving toward a reasonable middle-ground on that subject.

Click to expand...

What you get is both sides accursing each other of hypocracy while stating that their view was "totally" different, and then they stop talking again.

Nithavela said:

What you get is both sides accursing each other of hypocracy while stating that their view was "totally" different, and then they stop talking again.

Click to expand...

...that's where I see some value from some oversight, or at the very least, a core set of ground rules for anyone company wishing to identify as a platform.

In another thread, I referred to it as "partial neutrality" (sort of in the theme of Net Neutrality, but not quite as sweeping) in the realm of companies who want to enjoy the legal protections of being classified as a platform and not a publisher.

This rings especially true for platforms that want to monetize their members' data (which I suspect they'll keep on monetizing even after someone's gotten the boot off the platform, but I can't say for sure)


How Much Money Facebook Gets From Selling Your Data

According to this article, the value Facebook gets, on average, is about $8.25 quarterly per member from selling their data (may be more or less depending on if the person is in a particular target demographic for a big advertiser in a certain realm)

If a person is getting booted with either no explanation (which does happen), or based on a past post they made that didn't violate the TOS at the time they posted it, compensation should be in order.

Texas GOP is ready to welcome q'all on Gab.

tall73 said:

Gab, a social-networking site popular among the far right, seems to be capitalizing on Twitter bans and Parler being forced offline. It says it's gaining 10,000 new users an hour.

Gab.com has reported massive growth in the days following the Capitol insurrection, the removal of high-profile conservatives from Twitter - including President Donald Trump - and the app Parler going offline.

On Saturday, the site tweeted that it was gaining over 10,000 users an hour and had received "12m visits in past 12 hours" just before 11 a.m.

"Gab gained more users in the past two days than we did in our first two years of existing," the company tweeted late Sunday night, adding: "In very short order Gab will be bigger than the entire legacy media combined."

Click to expand...

I guess this is why I'm so surprised at all the complaining about cancel culture by the GOP in relationship to Twitter or Parler. It's not like they don't have other viable options to choose from.

tall73 said:

Perhaps because each platform with a free speech vision winds up being deplatformed, and has to scramble to find a place to host them.

Click to expand...

As I understand it, GAB set themselves up on their own servers so that other companies don't have that kind of power over them. IMO that's a logical move if one wishes to have full control over their website content. Parler's probably headed in that same direction.

By the way, Gab used the same company based out of Russia for their in between security as Parler moved to.

Click to expand...

Somehow that doesn't surprise me.

tall73 said:

And those doing so should be prosecuted.

There are other threads to discuss what happened at the riots. And fortunately those involved are being prosecuted as they should.

Calls for violence happened on all of the platforms, and they all must deal with it.

Click to expand...

But they don't all chose to deal with objectionable content in the same way. For instance this specific website has rules against posting materials related certain conspiracy theory content, like the kinds of things we saw and heard being repeated during the Capitol riots, and they actively remove such content.

Other websites like Parler choose to *not* weed out that type of material, and they instead choose to provide a "safe harbor" for such content, in spite of it being used to incite violence and resulting in tangible and real examples violence within our borders.

As long as everyone, including Google and Apple, Christianforums and Amazon have the right to moderate their content *freely*, based on their own rules, there's nothing really nefarious about various vendors refusing to allow specific types of content which might otherwise be "legal", and fall under the protections of 'free speech'.

As long as it's not the *government* imposing such restrictions, I don't really have a problem with it.

tall73 said:

Agreed, I think it will be necessary. It is still unfortunate.

Click to expand...

I don't really see it as being all that unfortunate frankly. It's simply part of doing business on the internet. If Parler wants to be free of Amazon restrictions, there's a pretty straight forward solution as Gab has already demonstrated. They simply need to move their servers "in house' and support them themselves, and the problem is solved.

FYI, one might argue that Gab and Parler have been given an opportunity to not only setup their own servers and become free of various constraints, they could also choose to offer online server functions to other companies and become direct competitors with Amazon and fill a nitche market. If and when Amazon drops a major client like Parler, Gab can then step in and offer them server features.

Like a said, as long as everyone is free to impose their own rules, I don't really see it as a major problem that Amazon or Apple chooses to not do business with specific clients.

tall73 said:

Facebook had around 70 groups dedicated to stop the steal. So I am not buying the notion that others don't harbor this content.

Sheryl Sandberg Slammed For Saying Capitol Riot Was Not 'Largely' Planned On Facebook


Media Matters “identified at least 70 active Facebook groups that were either named for or affiliated with ‘Stop the Steal’ that Facebook could have taken action against long before today.” Of the 70 groups the watchdog found, 46 of them were private.

Click to expand...

FYI, I wasn't referring to Facebook and stop the steal, but rather Christianforums in relationship to a specific conspiracy theory group (not specifically and directly related to stop the steal)). Both Facebook and Twitter contained (and still contain) tons of misinformation about the last election and I don't expect it to disappear anytime soon, or ever for that matter. In fact a lot of the evidence being used to hunt down Capitol rioters was posted by the rioters themselves to Facebook and Twitter and other "popular' platforms.

I think that it’s nice that people who need to exchange “conservative” recipes and “patriotic” pet ownership tips and keep themselves in a heightened state of anger have a place for themselves.

tall73 said:

Which is why it is hard to argue that Parler was that much worse. They all had the same types of content.

Click to expand...

I can't actually disagree with you on that point. I don't really know if they had more or less of that sort of content frankly. All I know that is Amazon and Apple and other companies didn't want to do business with them anymore. Even I however was a bit "miffed" at how little time Amazon gave Parler to find a new vendor, or setup their own servers. 3 days was simply absurd IMO.

Now Christian forums has more strict moderation. But that is hardly surprising given the target audience.

Click to expand...

Right, but then it's not fair to post here and then complain about the rules, in fact that's against the rules here.

Parler made commitments to Amazon when they signed up with Amazon. If Amazon feels that they broke that agreement, then they have every legal right to dump them. I'm not sure they had the legal right to dump them without a 30 day notice however. I get the impression that Amazon broke their own commitments to Parler by not giving Parler more time to migrate themselves to new servers.

I'm happy to let the courts figure that out.