Gab is being punished for doing nothing wrong

To hear the mainstream media say it, Gab is a sewer of racist hate-speech, enabler of  terrorists and other violent criminals. But the mainstream media haven’t earned their unenviable reputation as fake news for nothing. Quote:

Gab is absolutely being smeared and mischaracterised in the media…They claim that Gab is a racist-friendly haven, that they support these things: but that’s just not true, because Gab only has a little bit more hate-speech than, say Twitter does. But, if you’re looking at hard numbers, it’s substantially less. But if you’re talking about percentages, it’s about two times. End of quote.

That might sound a lot, until you realise just how small those percentages even are. Two is two times one: but both are still tiny numbers.

An audit found 5.4% of “hate words” in Gab posts, about twice that of Twitter. But, considering the much higher volume on Twitter, means that the hate speech on Twitter dwarfs Gab.

In any case, that means that 94.6% of Gab is *not* hate speech. Archbishop Desmond Tutu tells the story of a teacher who showed his class a white sheet with a single black spot on it. “What do you see?” he asked. “A black spot,” they replied. “You see the one black spot, but you ignore the entire sheet that is pure white!” Quote:

So, if we’re talking about what the media is saying about Gab, I can say that that’s pretty much not true…it sounds like it’s a fine platform for the most part. It’s just a platform where you can say your opinions without being banned. End of quote.

But if Gab is being banned from the internet because it was used by a hate-speakin’ criminal bent on terrorism then, by the same logic, Twitter should have been banned long ago. Twitter is notorious for hosting ISIS and other extremists, and was also the platform of choice of pipe-bomber Cesar Sayoc, who used Twitter to threaten people for months, without repercussion. Sayoc posted photos of the houses and families of politicians like Joe Biden and Maxine Waters, accompanied by explicit threats. Quote:

He was doing it for months, and Twitter didn’t actually ban him…even when people were reporting him: why isn’t Twitter facing any real punishment? Why aren’t their services cutting them off? End of quote.

Gab itself highlighted the hypocrisy, asking ‘Why is Facebook allowed to be on the internet?’, and listing a series of horrific crimes committed on Facebook Live. Others noted similar instances on Twitter. Quote:

Gab is being banned from these platforms due to the actions of one person. But we have something called Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. [It says] No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. According to Section 230, you can’t hold someone responsible based on what their users say…Twitter says, “We can’t be responsible…we are immune from the rules.

We shouldn’t be allowing these platforms to have it both ways: you’re either a publisher or a platform. End of quote.

Publishers choose what appears on their pages. If they publish defamation or violence, they are rightly held responsible. Twitter is a platform. But, by curating what appears on their pages, they’re becoming publishers: they are responsible. But they’re not being held responsible – unless like Gab they’re on the “wrong” side of the political fence. Quote:

If we are facing a massive tech-giant monopoly, and Gab can’t even stand up and create an alternative, then perhaps we are looking at monopolies that need to be split up or regulated. Something needs to happen. I think we need to guarantee the right to free speech, and we need to tell these platforms that they can’t ban people unless they’re breaking the law. End of quote.

Many on the right or the libertarian side of politics are ideologically opposed to regulation – but it’s time to admit that they’re wrong. Regulation isn’t always the enemy: bad regulations are. The system is not unregulated now, it’s merely stacked in the left’s favour.

The left today literally equate words with actions. That’s why they demand “safe spaces”: because they think words are actually going to hurt them. Consequently, the pro-censorship left believe that banning speech they don’t like will eradicate actions they don’t like. This is a childish fallacy, akin to hiding under the blankets from the Boogeyman. Quote:

Think about this: the motive of the man in Pittsburgh is known, because he was posting on Gab. If he was on Twitter, he would’ve been banned, and we wouldn’t know.

Gab did nothing wrong. Gab is not more so a haven for racists or the alt-right than any other platform. End of quote.


Do you want:

  • Ad-free access?
  • Access to our very popular daily crossword?
  • Access to daily sudoku?
  • Access to Incite Politics magazine articles?
  • Access to podcasts?
  • Access to political polls?

Our subscribers’ financial support is the reason why we have been able to offer our latest service; Audio blogs. 

Click Here  to support us and watch the number of services grow.

Who is Lushington D. Brady?

Well, a pseudonym. Obviously.

But the name Lushington Dalrymple Brady has been chosen carefully. Not only for the sum of its overall mien of seedy gentility, reminiscent perhaps of a slightly disreputable gentlemen of letters, but also for its parts, each of which borrows from the name of a Vandemonian of more-or-less fame (or notoriety) who represents some admirable quality which will hopefully animate the persona of Lushington D. Brady.

To read my previous articles click on my name in blue.

Listen to this post:
Voiced by Amazon Polly
31%