Running an alternative social media site?

well fuck you
twitter.com/getongab/status/909646893516414977
only safe space approved social networks allowed
god bless the internet gatekeepers

Other urls found in this thread:

ichrp.org/en/article_19_udhr
news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15275051
bbc.com/news/magazine-28526106
nationalreview.com/article/450476/silicon-valleys-anti-conservative-bias-solution-treat-major-tech-companies-utilities
gab.ai/gab/posts/12275897
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Social media is for nigger cattle anyway.

>want to register a free speech domain
>pick Australia's domain registrar
I support Gab's mission but that was full retard.

you don't get to insist that the internet is free and then also throw a bitch fit when all of the individual actors decide they don't want to deal with your niggardly shit.

this is very much the other edge of the two-sided sword that is freedom. if you want guarantees that any legal speech is protected and ultimately treated equivalently to uncontroversial speech, then you need to demand much more involved regulation of the internet.

otherwise, you're being an entitled bitchy faggot.

goytter is 90% jewish propaganda.

the more mainstream jewish sites go politically correct, the more alternative places run well, active and popular.

GAS THEM ALL

It's what Icelandic domain registrars are for. More expensive, but... you know.

Since it doesn't seem like you're trying to do a domain level hack (the social network's name is just Gab, not Gabai), why not something like gab.online?

WTF, I love Asia Registry now

Gab.ai is an echo chamber anyway. People who use it are morons who just want other people to agree with them and stoke their egos.

If normalfags aren't reading what you're saying (and on gab.ai, they aren't), then what's the point?

>Asia registry is an Australian company
>Asia Registry is your Asia wide domain name registrar
>.ai is the Internet country code top-level domain (ccTLD) for Anguilla.
>Anguilla is a British overseas territory in the Caribbean.

Well this is straightforward.

>you don't get to insist that the internet is free and then also throw a bitch fit when all of the individual actors decide they don't want to deal with your niggardly shit.

They haven't done anything to the domain registrar though, I don't think the registrar is dealing with any shit.

all are welcome so exactly who are they discriminating

>They haven't done anything to the domain registrar though, I don't think the registrar is dealing with any shit.
the registrar doesn't have to wait for you to be a faggot to deny you service. they're free to just tell you to fuck right off. that's entirely their right.

the idea that someone should have to wait to be harmed before they can kick you off their platform is nuts under the current legal structure. if you don't like it, that's fine - just go demand that all of these companies be held to stricter standards.

Nobody cares, faggot. kys.

>Gab.ai is an echo chamber anyway
and why is that?

you forgot what freedom of speech is?

But do they have any real reason to believe that they'll be harmed?

And I know that they're within their legal rights to kick them off their platform, but it seems like a dick move.

>But do they have any real reason to believe that they'll be harmed?
they don't have to. you're not understanding. they can refuse business if they just don't feel like dealing with an objectionable client.

you seem really keen on applying judicial limits on private actors. you need to get that delusion out of your system. the only time such strict restrictions have to be applied is if the government is involved, which isn't the case.

>Pepists BTFO
yay

fuck off lefty shitskin

My question is do they really feel like they're going to have to deal with shit because of their tacit enabling of a website that does them, as a regristrar, no direct harm? Or are they denying gab service simply because of ill will towards them for disagreeing on politics?

then what do you consider other more popular normalfag infested sites which delete your posts if they're controversial to be?

>My question is do they really feel like they're going to have to deal with shit because of their tacit enabling of a website that does them, as a regristrar, no direct harm?
the email in the OP suggests that their lawyers saw a legal case could be made that they would be violating australian law if they kept gab. they might have been able to fight it and win, but they rightly figured that it would be cheaper to drop gab, and they wouldn't lose many clients for dropping gab without a trial or any real review.

if torba hadn't been a turbofaggot, he might've been able to convince asia registry — or really some registrar somewhere — that gab is just a neutral platform that takes free speech very seriously. he could've said something like "look, i also disagree with a lot of this content, but i feel very strongly that any decision to limit speech without intense legal scrutiny stands to amount to censorship, without any of the ability for the public to interrogate or scrutinize specific decisions". or something like that.

instead, he got REALLY chummy with the specifically objectionable groups that had to leave twitter and shit, and now all of his arguments about free speech come laced with this alt-right shit. it has this poison pill effect of making normal people reject the free speech argument, which is actually making the web a more dangerous place.

>Or are they denying gab service simply because of ill will towards them for disagreeing on politics?
that's probably part of it. at this point gab has made itself a wedge where people who don't want to be painted as racists have to come down against it. note that they could have made themselves a wedge where people who believed in FREE SPEECH had to come down on the side of gab, but torba is a turbofaggot, so he fucking failed at that. the result is that it's politically dangerous for people to stay with any company that supports gab (and thus, dangerous for a company to work with gab)

>domain seizure over something other than warez/CP
Why the fuck is this suddenly a thing? Was it a thing before but we just didn't notice?

generally it's new. intensely objectionable content arouses talk of legal regulation, and tech companies will do anything to demonstrate that they don't need to be regulated, so they decided to clean up whenever enough people got pissed about this shit.

>alternative
Don't you mean white supremacist?

Got a Hacker News account? Submit this shit. It's gonna be big.

THANK YOU BASED STRAYA

FUCK OFF RIGHT-WING NEOCON NAZIS

Freedom of speech is applicable to government. Not private entities or citizens.

As always there is bait and derail when a thread is about social media/network,etc alternatives

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

ichrp.org/en/article_19_udhr

This is probably going to end in getting them regulated to the moon by Trump senpai.

It's like a self fullfilling prophecy

this

and post it on reddit and find reasons to post stackexchange and quora questions about it

No one enforces UN laws. Every country enforces their own laws. If the two intersect, then good, otherwise there's nothing in there.

>regulated to the moon by Trump senpai.
lol no. trump and republicans in general don't want to increase regulation.

tech companies are sitting pretty right now. no matter how much they overreach, republicans aren't going to want to regulate these industries. ajit pai will see to it that the FCC doesn't allow any onerous regulation on tech companies (to the dismay of net neutrality advocates).

and democrats are happy to see tech companies occasionally overreach and knock down nazis and white supremacists.

gab is fucked. and it's torbafaggot's fault.

They should take this to court. The Abuse Policy explicitly says "unlawful" use in regards to hate speech. If something is unlawful is up to the courts to decide.

as expected, you're still confused. the law obligates these companies to do something if a legal circumstance is met. that doesn't mean that their hands are tied and they're barred from acting in the absence of that criteria.

it's a simple logical test. "if A, then B" doesn't necessarily mean "if not A, then not B".

Maybe Id feel more sympathetic to them if they held to free speech principles they advertised instead of banning users to please some third party. They should have stood up to registrar against unlawful seize of the domain in court and not start screwing their users and throwing free speech principle into the trash the moment challenge appeared (which everyone knew would happen, they even wrote about it in their posts).

torba started out trying to argue that gab is for free speech and had no interest in the petty politics of the day. gab could have weathered the storm if he stayed on point. but he had to be a retard and start talking about how those faggots had some interesting ideas or whatever it was he said, and he got written off as a white supremacist as well.

if he had said he disagreed with what they said, but would defend to the death their right to say it, he could have at least looked principled and defended gab on principles. instead he looked like the IT support pal for white supremacists, and now SJWs have a stronger argument than ever that sites should aggressively censor their users based on whatever nebulous rules they want to set up.

so now twitter and facebook and all these other sites get to make up their own rules for what they find offensive, because the political will is to play fast and loose with freedom of speech.

i really can't get over how much torba fucked free speech on the web with how he fumbled gab.

gonna need a script that generates dead lawyer jokes using a neutral network and emails their legal@ address

>gab.ai
Why Sup Forums loves so much that botnet? Gnu Social is better option by far.
>free speech
You have better places.

Its you who is confused here, they cannot just do whatever they want, because muh private company. They have a contract with their customers and conditions of this contract are described in tos. They cant just terminate contract for reason outside their own tos. And exactly as said, it is unlawful use of the domain name that is against tos. Except only court can decide if it is unlawful so they shouldnt act without valid court order. That means denial of their service to paying customer is illegal and gab owner should have taken it to court.

>the email in the OP suggests that their lawyers saw a legal case could be made that they would be violating australian law if they kept gab
Fair enough, I guess that could be the case.

he might've been able to convince asia registry — or really some registrar somewhere — that gab is just a neutral platform that takes free speech very seriously
I don't think he had that chance with Asia registry; they emailed him out of the blue giving him 5 days to vacate.

With the Google play store rejection thing, I don't think he really had a way out. They basically said that the app needed moderation, and that's pretty much the antithesis of Gab.

IMO what Gab needs is a lower signal to noise ratio. Just a whole bunch of twitter-esque innocuous normie shitposting. Then the alt-right shit will get drowned out for the people who don't look too closely, but it's still there for people who want it, and Gab can still tout their freedom of speech ideals.

news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15275051

they want all the benefits of a botnet without any of the consequences

>they want eat chocolate everyday without getting fat
Come, if it is freeware you are the product.

>flagged to oblivion

if you think they don't have terms in their contract that allow them to terminate a customer's account with 5 days notice for any reason, you're nuts. they don't hire lawyers to play defense; they're writing these contracts specifically to give them plenty of escape hatches.

>They basically said that the app needed moderation, and that's pretty much the antithesis of Gab.
all he needed was to say that there are people verifying that the content on gab adheres to relevant laws, and google would have been fine with it. google isn't enforcing morality here; they just need to be able to say that they had some reason to believe the claim that DMCA claims and other legal stuff would be handled appropriately. this kind of legal wink and nudge is why you don't let a 26-year-old tech founder shoot from the hip all on his own.

getting a bunch of normal people on the site wouldn't have done shit. twitter has all the normal people it'll get and people still accused it of not doing enough to stop neo-nazis. gab just needed to own that it was radically pro-free speech and say that there might be a coincidental gravitation for objectionable characters to come to this platform, but that it doesn't mean gab is a pro-nazi or whatever platform.

instead, torba keenly embraced a frog for an icon and jumped head first into that whole subculture. if you asked him to lay low i bet he'd suddenly get loud gas.

>Freedom of speech is applicable to government. Not private entities or citizens.
Freedom of speech was not invented with the first amendment. It's a value. The founding fathers simply believed the government could only be responsible for its own actions. It wasn't an indictment on the concept of free speech and tolerance in private life. That's absolutely retarded.

>instead of banning users to please some third party
Wait, he banned people? When?

at the time that they were talking about freedom of speech, the idea that any private entity had the kind of power over an individual's speech that we're talking about today would have been lunacy. to project their values outward today would be insane. when the founding fathers were writing the bill of rights, the common wisdom was that there were four elements and that one of them was fire. all this is to say that their sense of the world was radically different from what we know today, and we should apply their worldview with a modicum of salt.

My point is that free speech wasn't limited to their worldview though. The first amendment is a single application of that value or principle. There's plenty of philosophers and thinkers who argued all forms of expression should be uninhibited, etc. I'm tired of reddit parroting that faggot's comic, missing the point entirely.

Free market, motherfucker.

There are tons of extreme right wingers who managed not to get banned. You actually have to try pretty hard to get banned on twitter, if you still can't behave despite the freedoms they offer, it's not surprising, normal society doesn't want anything to do with you.

Warez sites aren't illegal in many countries and even CP is legit in some, just dealing with the backlash isn't worth it. White supremacist aren't far off CP in popularity, so it's only reasonable that a company doesn't want to taint their reputation by association.

>questioning the FF
Way to trigger Muricans.

Centralized internet is anarcho capitalism.

alright whos up for running a server hosting service?

>who managed to not get banned
Only works if you have several hundred followers. Unironically tested this out because I noticed my random accounts with 50-150 followers would get banned really fast. Posted the same images (Sarah Anderson comic edits about IQ gaps and shit) on them and what was my main account with 800 followers. Small accounts were banned very quickly.

I ended up deleting my other account because I felt arguing on twitter was a waste of time. People lose too much social status by admitting defeat or even changing their minds on a subject, especially if their account is politically focused.

>White supremacist aren't far off CP in popularity
sure in san fagcisco

10% of Americans support the alt-right, according to an ABC/NBC poll post-Charlottesville. That's 30 million people in one country.

>Only works if you have several hundred followers.
Well, I didn't try but this does sound realistic. It also makes sense from their perspective, people with low amounts of followers are more likely to be complete trolls, while some dude with hundreds, might actually be contributing.

>I felt arguing on twitter was a waste of time.
It always is, as is most other arguing on the Internet, just twitter makes it even more retarded with all the limits. It's not really made for it either.

>People lose too much social status by admitting defeat or even changing their minds on a subject
Just the opposite. It shows that they can learn and adjust, which is pretty hard to do in any scenario but especially in public eye, hence why it's so unlikely to happen. Most political accounts are just pandering to a certain audience of course, so it's extra unlikely.

Aren't the pedophile estimates worldwide at 3-20%, with 10% being a not unreasonable number for Murica? The number of people being interested in CP just for kicks is probably even higher.

>Aren't the pedophile estimates worldwide at 3-20%
Maybe if pedophile means attraction to anyone under the age of 18, otherwise, no. I mean, 20%? That's literally 1 in 5 people being sexually attracted to children. With a working definition of attraction to kids under the age of 14, it's about 2% of the adult population according to researchers.

bbc.com/news/magazine-28526106

Too bad CP includes both pedos and hebephiles :^)

Well, 2% worldwide makes it still quite a big deal globally, and back in the day men playing with boys was pretty normal, it's not like all pedos are also 100% disgusted by everything else. Besides it's not like muh hebephiles are any more socially acceptable, at least in the first world, watching 15 year old fuck is just as illegal as watching some dude jerking over a baby.

So where is the whining about CP lovers oppression by muh evil companies?

...

Man, I miss her.

charlottesville false flag

>continuing to feed the hand that fists them.

Republicans gave up the culture war long ago. They see a rising far right as a bigger threat to their power than the liberals, so they continue to turn a blind eye to silicon valley censorship.

There's a mutual tolerance between the 2 major parties

keking @ this stupidity, the problem is the domain getting suspended not their hosting.

Maybe if services like twitter didn't ban people at the drop of a hat, they wouldn't be congregating in an ecochamber reinforcing their world view and would get to discuss things with normal people and maybe see the error of their ways. Same thing happened with GG, gaming sites were banning people left and right, they all congregated on Sup Forums and caused a massive meltdown. It's the internet/free speach equivalent of an eye for an eye makes everyone blind. Stupid as can be.

Nah, microsoft just removed/censored all her tweets, the account is technically still up. You just can't follow it or see any tweets. I do miss her though.

Twitter did however ban Terry.

wrongthink.net

You seem confused as this was my first post in this thread.

EU law forces internet companies to delete stuff. They do it based on their own judgment (which is a terrible choice but courts don't scale with the Internet). Technically you could take them to court over every single deletion (or the refusal thereof) because the only place that decides if it was justified is a court.

I wouldn't complain about their policy if it just said "we don't allow hate speech". But it explicitly states it must be an "unlawful use" of hate speech to justifiy a contract termination. Again, the only institution that decides if something is unlawful is a court and no one else.

>Neocon
>Nazis
I don't think you know what either of those means

>if you want guarantees that any legal speech is protected and ultimately treated equivalently to uncontroversial speech, then you need to demand much more involved regulation of the internet.
The internet must be classified as a public forum first to be eligible as protection and as a public carrier second to be eligible for regulation. Actually you only need the second one.

I agree, if there's 2 things I hate it's Nazi's and freedom. /s

you have to be at least 18 and not a lainshitter to post here

this is actually not that bad of a post

Top level jewry is trying to shut it down by any means possible. If you don't think curators of the world wide web can't be incentivised to break principles, you are overestimating the moral fiber of post humans.

holy shit the people making comments in that twitter are legitimately retarded. dont know a single thing about tech.

>The internet must be classified as a public forum
maybe pajeet pai will talk with people upstairs and make it happen.

nationalreview.com/article/450476/silicon-valleys-anti-conservative-bias-solution-treat-major-tech-companies-utilities
It's not too far fetched

gab.ai/gab/posts/12275897