I think Gab has a fair point here. They are under more scrutiny and thus claim to have developed more sophisticated moderation systems to detect and rapidly refer potentially illegal content to law enforcement (I was listening to the linked podcast interview with their CEO).
>It’s interesting that Twitter remains online and has access to App Stores and Gab does not. The reason is clear: Big Tech has no principles other than its desire to serve the interests of the radical left and the Democratic Party. They can’t say it out loud so they say it with their actions.
Seems like a strange claim if one looks at the top 10 popular contributors on Facebook[1], and I am very convinced that both Twitter and Facebook have been primary drivers behind fuelling populism in the US by removing gatekeepers. If they're a liberal conspiracy, they're probably the least successful one in a long time.
On the issue of hate itself, obviously comparing absolute numbers on Twitter and Gab is comparing apples and oranges. I suspect the density of hate speech on Gab, that is hate speech in relationship to regular posts is way higher, which creates the (correct) impression that they're way more negligent or even explicitly try to service that audience. That's not to say that Facebook or Twitter don't have a larger responsibility simply because they're larger, but it explains why these fringe networks are such quick targets without resorting to the logic of political coordination.
There's a case to be made that Twitter and Facebook turned a blind eye to extremism for profit but Gab has no place making that case. Gab has long since passed the exit for the high road.
Twitter was filled with edgy material and dark humor in 2009-2011, and Facebook's main draw was pre-woke-era college kids being drunk or trying to be clever (or both). They get to be the big incumbents now but they probably wouldn't have met the bar that's being raised for upstart competitors.
When you start using phrases such as the following, then you have step of out of the realm of making a point, to making stupid argument.
> "Big Tech has no principles other than its desire to serve the interests of the radical left and the Democratic Party"
That statement alone ignores the core fact these company serve their own interests first. But that aside, maybe these companies have a lot more to offer in general.
However this statement from Gab isn't one against FB or Twitter, it is a recruitment drive:
> The only way we can beat Big Tech is to build an internet of our own – and financial system of our own – where Big Tech has no power. Conservatives and freedom-loving people everywhere must vote with their feet and join the millions of people who are getting on Gab.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.
