Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Social Media and the Pittsburgh Shooter: Gab.com Going Down

posted by martyb on Monday October 29 2018, @08:15AM   Printer-friendly
from the social-commentary-on-social-media dept.

bradley13 writes:

The social network gab.com is apparently going down on Monday, October 29th at 09:00 ET. Their ISP has terminated their services, ostensibly because Robert Bowers, the Pittsburgh mass shooting suspect, had made offensive posts on Gab.

To get this out of the way: I have mixed feelings about Gab, more specifically, about the founders. However, the idea that some social network somewhere should refuse to censor anything that is not outright illegal? This is good. Social media has become the modern "market square", and free speech should be guaranteed, even if the platforms are technically private.

If you want free speech, you apparently don't want to be in the U.S.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Social Media and the Pittsburgh Shooter: Gab.com Going Down | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 116 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2) by canopic jug on Monday October 29 2018, @11:20AM (4 children)

    by canopic jug (3949) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 29 2018, @11:20AM (#755029) Journal

    They waived that intentionally and with premeditation by presenting their service as a public service and building their marketshare upon that claim. If they had stayed a private, members-only club behind some kind of paywall or other obstruction then of course they can behave in whatever way they want, within the law. However, they have not done that. Again, if ISPs want common carrier protections, they have to act as common carriers instead of opening the floodgates for lawsuits from anyone over anything.

    --
    Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday October 29 2018, @11:28AM (3 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 29 2018, @11:28AM (#755031) Journal

    They waived that intentionally and with premeditation by presenting their service as a public service and building their marketshare upon that claim.

    Really now.
    Show me where they did so or the law that stipulate this.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford

    • (Score: 2) by canopic jug on Monday October 29 2018, @11:30AM (2 children)

      by canopic jug (3949) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 29 2018, @11:30AM (#755032) Journal

      Re-read the links two levels up. One is from the EFF the other from The Atlantic.

      --
      Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by c0lo on Monday October 29 2018, @11:58AM (1 child)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 29 2018, @11:58AM (#755039) Journal

        Ok. The Atlantic

        Despite what you may have read on Twitter, the judge did not hold that Twitter is public property

        So... nope.

        EEF

        The judge agreed with the Knight Institute, which argued that the interactive spaces associated with the @realDonaldTrump account are “public forums” under the First Amendment, meaning that the government cannot exclude people from them simply because it disagrees with their views.

        Nope again. Trump cannot ban Tweeter users.
        Tweeter is still free to kick-out anyone it likes (or actually doesn't like) - unless you can show a breech of contract, Tweeter is still owned by... whoever owns Tweet. 1st amendment does not apply to private entity.

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford

        • (Score: 2) by canopic jug on Monday October 29 2018, @04:31PM

          by canopic jug (3949) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 29 2018, @04:31PM (#755177) Journal

          ... Tweeter is still owned by... whoever owns Tweet. 1st amendment does not apply to private entity.

          That would be the Saudis, in part. Just like with Faux News.

          However, regardless of who owns what, the tricks going on are rather transparent. Politicians are trying (and partially succeeding) in doing an end run around the First Ammendment of the US Constitution by outsourcing censorship while squawking about private companies. I see that it is the activity which is governed by the 1st, not the medium. So if protected activity moves to a new medium, then the medium is also governed by the 1st: social media, ISPs, and payment systems. With the court decision against Der Apfelsine we can see things heading that direction. Whether full 1st Ammendment support can be achieved, indpedendent of medium, will continue to be a matter of intense and expensive political fights.

          --
          Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.