Gab is in the same category as The Daily Stormer. It's not courageous to hide behind free speech absolutism to protect content that invites others to violence. That's being too weak to engage in making the hard choices of what you will support with your efforts. It's the exact opposite of being principled.
Except that The Daily Stormer is creating their own content while Gab is just hosting others. I'm sure I could find YouTube comments equally as bad as comments on Gab.
The era of tech washing their hands of being accountable for user generated content on their platform is over. YouTube works quite hard to keep their platform safe. It's still not good enough. But I'm sure they have more people working on that problem than have ever worked on Gab.
Do you think 4chan also be moderated in this way and users purged for using abusive language? And how do I become the moderator of language? I sure would like to be the gate keeper of acceptable speech.
I think it's unconstructive to command people to get out of a business because the line they draw on how disgusting and hateful content can be before they'll disallow it on their platform is different from the line (or lack thereof) that you'd draw. I also think it's probably purposeful disingenuous to frame that distinction as a righteous free speech decision where anybody who doesn't agree with your interpretation is not courageous.
Nothing prevents Gab from finding harbor with any company that will have them, but nothing legally compels any company or person to provide that harbor.
This is exactly the same as if I told you to get off my porch.
You may as well stop using the internet entirely, there simply isn't anyone in this business that is the type of defender of free speech you're talking about. And if there was, toxic elements would gather there and then they'd most likely have other companies they depend on cut them off somewhere down the line.
Just because you can't think of any examples of businesses not cowering to censorship, doesn't mean that there are none.
Twitter has made lots of mistakes, but they've also stood on first principles many of times when it comes to free speech. Cloudflare is another great example.
The US standard for what is legally free speech is absurdly low. Why should companies hold themselves to it? Why should they force themselves to support organizations that promote the wholesale elimination of other classes of people?
The ‘US Standard’ for free speech is exactly where it should be, and applies to the government’s role in censoring citizen speech. Joyent, as a business has no obligation to support anything outside of their own policies.
I think they were saying, if money is free speech, and racist slurs are free speech, and anti-semitic conspiracy theories are free speech, then the quality standard for something to be free speech is low, and any mildly sympathetic individual or organization would put their own standard for free speech higher.
The "US Standard" generally means the standard by which the people of the US value the concept of Free Speech, which extends beyond that of the 1st amendment. We the people of the US codified our position on speech in the 1st amendment of our governing document to ensure that our government would never infringe upon our most vital right as free humans.
This however does not in anyway mean we believe others including large corporations should have the right to infringe upon said rights simply because "its a business"
There are many avenues one could seek to hold Joynet and others like them that proclaim to be open to all in their advertisements then reject many they disagree with. First and foremost would be Truth in Advertisement laws, Fraud, and other legal regulations which if they were properly enforced these companies would be clearly violating
No the "US Standard" of Free Speech is not just about government censorship, that is ignorant and naive view of what Free Speech is as a concept. Free Speech is concept where by a person is free to express themselves with out fear of censorship from either government or society at large. Free Speech today is under massive attack not by government in the US (yet) but by society at large.
//Edit for the record. I do not have nor do I plan to sign up for a Gab account (or twitter Gab's competitor) this is not about Gab as a service, I honestly could not care less about Gab it is about the precedent this sets when it comes to cloud and other internet infrastructure
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I suggest you re-read that and point to where it says "society at large". The 1st Amendment is a restriction on the government, not on the people (except maybe the "peaceably" bit).
The Constitution is a document establishing and limiting government power. It has nothing to do with what I am talking about
Freedom of speech exist beyond and outside of the 1st amendment, that fact that many people believe all free speech issues are limited only to the 1st amendment and government censorship is part of the massive problem we have in society at large
Do you believe a baker should have the right to refuse to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, if the baker has a deeply-held religious belief that same-sex relationships are sinful? If the baker turns out to have that legal right, would you argue that baker should nonetheless not exercise that right?
Asking because people in these kinds of threads often seem to get suspiciously selective about when and why they decide to argue for stripping the right of free association -- and disassociation -- from others.
Usually when people make these statements, they don't actually mean it.
If Gab were strictly a child porn site, would it be okay if Joyent stopped serving them? If yes, then your absolutist statement isn't actually what you mean and it's just a question of where to draw the line. If not (which has yet to have been the case when someone initially stated such a trivial statement), then I disagree with you and maybe there's some interesting discussion to be had.
I would argue that restrictions on child pornography are more about consent and intent and the idea that anyone under the age of majority is not considered capable of giving consent to a sexual act.
Making racist statements is not against the law in the US. Child porn is. As such they would have a legal obligation to cut them off if they were hosting child porn.
Oh please. Smoking marijuana is illegal in every part of the US but every so-called "defender of free speech" that I've met would be totally up in arms about a host shutting down a site for being involved in that.