[gruez]

>Regardless of what argument you're making, it seems perfectly reasonable to bring up Gab as part of the conversation.

It is? I took the comment to argue something along the lines of "well they're hypocrites, therefore it's totally okay to censor them in return". For that to work, you'd need them to be the same entity. Having two sites that operate independently, and having separate policies doesn't seem hypocritical to me. In that context, bringing up gab is a total red herring.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28962107

[hairofadog]

I'm likely confused. The next parent above your question that mentions Gab is currently this one:

> Gab also used Mastodon but they don't anymore anymore. They did run as a Mastodon instance[1], but after being blocked from most instances and even at the software level by most Mastodon apps, they stopped using Mastodon and wrote their own new backend that does not federate.

...which seems like a pretty plain statement of facts? Is there some encoded animosity there I'm missing? The comment you replied to was a link to a Rolling Stone article that also doesn't mention Gab. (As an aside, I think Rolling Stone is a terrible source of news or information).

[gruez]

Whoops, I got the two companies confused. My original objection was with this comment[1], which was talking about the moderation policies of another company, truth social. That part seemed irrelevant to me, because the moderation policies of one site (truth social) shouldn't make the grievances of another site (gab) less valid.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28962107