SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Why Epik welcomed Gab.com
This post will summarize why Epik welcomed Gab.com. It will also address why I believe the operators of the site have the right to be online.
epik.com
So, who the heck is Epik? Never heard of them.
After GoDaddy cut ties following Pittsburgh shooting, Gab back online thanks to Seattle startup
A Seattle startup has inked a deal to host domain registrar services for Gab.com, the site that was dropped by GoDaddy and other companies in the wake of the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting.
www.geekwire.com
The story is here: https://epik.com/blog/why-epik-welcomed-gab-com.html
Let Freedom Ring
To the casual observer, the case of Gab.com seems like it is something new. It is not. It is history repeating itself. While there are consequences to actions, there is also the proverbial risk of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. My hope, for all of our sakes, is that Gab.com treads wisely, using its liberty for the betterment of most, and the enlightenment of all.
Sincerely,
Robert W. Monster
Founder and CEO
Epik.comNovember 3, 2018
Maybe it's my browser configuration, but gab.ai doesn't seem to be working, completely. But, they haven't gone away. The pages that load are filled with bitterness, and maybe even some hate speech, if you're into that sort of vilification. Still don't know diddly about Robert Monster, but maybe he's a "good guy".
Previously: Social Media and the Pittsburgh Shooter: Gab.com Going Down
Gab's Plan To Use Blockchain To Make Itself Indestructible
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Wednesday November 07 2018, @02:41PM (3 children)
Either we believe in free speech, or we don't. There is no middle ground. It's time to stop tolerating the hypocrites who believe in free speech, only as long as it doesn't offend anyone.
This, in my mind, is why "common carrier" was defined all those decades ago. The phone company had no business monitoring your conversations, or denying you service based on what you talked about with whom. If you did something illegal, it was on the police to get a warrant, tap your phone, and ultimately prosecute you. Nothing illegal? No problem.
Today, the picture is more complex, and also part-and-parcel of "net neutrality". The common carriers of the Internet age include not only ISPs, but also domain registrars, cloud services, and so forth. Realistically, they must also include payment processors. None of these companies should be allowed to deny any customer service, as long as that customer pays their bills and does nothing illegal.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by DannyB on Wednesday November 07 2018, @02:52PM (1 child)
The picture is more complex as you say.
I want to point out: the telephone is, and especially more so in the past, a one to one communications medium. So what one says in private to another person or small group was not quite the same thing as the internet, which can be both a broadcast medium and an infinite printing press that distributes tweets in real time.
As much as I think some speech simply does not belong, or perhaps more properly those who hold the ideas behind some speech, I think that those who control "the tubes" (both connectivity, IP addresses, and DNS) should not be denying service based on content of speech. Nor on how unsavory an internet site, or its users may be. Instead go after the users. It's the same thinking behind copyright infringement. Don't blame the site, blame individual users who are the ones engaging in such activity.
It seems that we already do go after people who make plans to overthrow the US government. Or who truly threaten our democracy. Or plan terrorist attacks. So there is already some level where you don't get the "free speech" card.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday November 07 2018, @03:12PM
Don't blame the site, blame individual users who are the ones engaging in such activity.
Hear Hear! The real danger comes from the followers and believers, but it's much more expedient to silence the speakers, being a singular focal point and all. But make no mistake, the blame is on the crowd.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 07 2018, @05:26PM
This is true. But that doesn't mean we can't, or shouldn't, push back against speech that deserves it. Where do we draw that line? And who draws it? Each person should be the arbiter of their own limits. But should the government ever be involved?
For example, if a public figure with a large following starts lying about something - let's say water safety - should we simply say "well, it's his right to tell people polluted water is safe to drink, and if they are stupid enough to believe him that's on them"? Or should we push back against the lies? What if someone who is in a position within local government that makes decisions about water safety believes the lie and endangers tens of thousands of people? Are they free to believe any speech, whether it is true or not?
Should lies be tolerated? Should we defend truth? And who gets to decide what is "true", especially if the government - or some of its leaders - decides that telling lies is OK?
So it's either we believe in free speech, or we don't. But it is not that simple.