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: 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.