Fascist social network Gab forced to shut down

Yes it does.
Gab’s Demise Is Just the Beginning of a Horrific New Era of Far-Right Extremism - When it launched in 2016, Gab.com touted itself as one of the last bastions of free speech on the Internet. Two years later, as the site is “de-platformed” in the wake of its connection to the senseless mass murder in Pittsburgh, Gab has become an even more redolent example of how technology is eroding democracy.
Before he opened fire inside the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, killing at least 11 people who had gathered for Shabbat services, Robert Bowers, the alleged shooter, found a safe space to express the anti-Semitic hatred that was consuming him. “There is no #MAGA as long as there is a k*** infestation,” Bowers wrote on Gab.com. On Twitter or Facebook, Bowers’s views would have gotten him banned; on Gab, he fit right in. “Jews are the children of Satan,” read his profile. And toward the end of his post history—filled with even more violent, anti-Semitic and anti-minority content—he increasingly indicated that he would start acting soon. “I can’t sit by and watch my people get slaughtered,” Bowers wrote on Saturday. “Screw your optics, I’m going in.” Moments later, he began his shooting spree...
In practice, however, the site quickly became a safe space for the racist expressions that got users kicked off of Facebook and Twitter. Its blind commitment to so-called free speech permitted any sort of discussion to thrive, even if it was hateful, violent, or anti-Semitic in nature. In a Vice article from April, writer Tom Bennett described his experience signing up for the site. “A quick scroll down the Twitter-like home page and I was met with a picture of Joseph Goebbels, quotes from Mein Kampf, pro-gun and anti-trans memes, and a series of posts by former B.N.P. leader Nick Griffin. This was before I’d followed anyone, reposted anything, or been active in any way. This home page wasn’t based on any preferences of mine that Gab’s algorithm had learned—it was a selection of posts that were popular with other users.” ...
The internal debate over exactly how much hate speech the community could tolerate reflects a broader argument within the right over how to spread their ideas throughout the Internet—whether by “red-pilling”, a.k.a. sneaking fascist, racist, or anti-Semitic views into larger society by presenting them as reasonable alternatives to apparently strident liberal voices (“social-justice warriors“), or by overt action, such as rallies and marches, neo-Nazi imagery, and racist chants. (Donald Trump himself is a controversial figure in this debate, with some on the far right praising him for helping to “red-pill” the “normies,” while fascist activists accuse Trump and the far right of “paralyzing the supply chain” by providing a moderate alternative to full-on Nazism.) The Charlottesville rally in 2017, which left a protester dead, was intended as a direct rebuke to the “optics cucks,” who preferred the former tactic. The debate became a major dividing point, apparently with extreme real-world consequences. Nehlen was a harsh critic of the “optics cucks.” Bowers, too, wrote “screw your optics” before he began his shooting...
For anyone who followed Gab and observed the stridency of its factions, it was little surprise that its commenters quickly celebrated Bowers’s actions. “I can’t wait to hear about how many lampshades the alleged synagogue shooter made out [sic] these jews in Pittsburg,” wrote @EmilyAnderson, followed by three laughing cat emojis; another user predicted that Bowers’s statement—“All these Jews have to die”—would “be a meme as long as the Internet lives. Which wont [sic] be long after this LOL.” ...
... the existence of Gab reflects a larger trend on the right, wherein those banished from mainstream social-media sites create evermore extreme platforms on which to express themselves. Fox News initiated this trend more than two decades ago: the cable channel was explicitly founded to offer a conservative take on the news, while Andrew Breitbart built his namesake site to cater to an even more conservative audience. The bigger the Internet has become, and the lower the cost of entry, the more likely sites like Gab.com and those further afield will proliferate—not just as social hubs, but as an alternate Internet with its attendant-support networks. (Already, far-right crowd-funding sites like Hatreon have popped up as alternatives to GoFundMe and Patreon, though they’re frequently kicked off of major payment platforms.) By insisting that Silicon Valley is unfairly suppressing and maligning the views of his “deplorables,” Trump has effectively created a feedback loop wherein the right’s persecution complex—and its extremism—grows more pronounced each time it is forced to decamp to a new online home.
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 39,637
Location: Long Island, New York

It's certainly not the first time I've seen that xkcd. In principle it's correct. The problem is all too often it's not people coming to choices and taking actions of their own free will, it's because they've got activists screaming and clawing and breaking them down. People like these:
https://splinternews.com/the-activists- ... 1829659363
Came across that the other day and have been pondering making a thread about it, so if anyone else wants to get that ball rolling first, feel free.
Your quote on the other hand is dead wrong, because any kind of speech can be silenced as long as someone has the power and desire to do so.
Anyway, I've been arguing for the vast majority of site users who did nothing wrong and will lose everything on that site, their posts, content they liked, friends they made if they didn't have contact details outside of the site...
I do not see any evidence that Go Daddy made their decision to cut off Gab involuntary.
Going beyound Go Daddy and Gab because this is an issue that goes way beyound these two companies. It is not an issue of free will and speech it is an issue how these rights are being used.
There are too many companies using thier free will and thier right to free speech to be
1. Overly censorious
2. To cower to political pressure too easily.
3. To give in to the emotions of the moment at the expense of shareholders and the long term benifits of open debate of society.
From the limited amount I have seen of Gab them being not around is not a loss to society. The problem is the much maligned “slippery slope” is well underway and too many people and companies that are not supremacists and so on are not here or have been deplatformed to the the no influencial fringes. This is because 1. Too many people are cowards. 2. The leadership of these trendy influencial companies actually believe most people who do not think like them are supremacists who need to be expunged.
These “alt right” terrorists have done a lot of harm to free expression by continually validating the censorious and those that believe that anybody advocating for free expression are doing it to deflect hateful beliefs. They are continually making us who advocate for the basic free expression of ideas the USA was founded on LOOK wrong, stupid, and enablers.
_________________
“Self Acceptance is a process not a performance”
“You are autistic enough. And you always have been”
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity.
The First Amendment says that the State cannot limit speech (particularly political speech).
It does not say that you have a right to compel someone else into providing you with a soapbox and a bullhorn.
It does not say that you have a right to be indemnified from the social (and legal) consequences of your speech.
It does not say that you have a right to be taken seriously.
The last time we indulged Fascism as just another equally valid philosophy in the marketplace of ideas, equally worthy of consideration and respect, 60 million people were killed.
It does not say that you have a right to compel someone else into providing you with a soapbox and a bullhorn.
It does not say that you have a right to be indemnified from the social (and legal) consequences of your speech.
It does not say that you have a right to be taken seriously...
So if you get banned from a privately-owned website or kicked out of a private party for what you say, your First Amendment rights aren't being violated. It's just a few private citizens expressing their own private opinions about you, that's all.
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 39,637
Location: Long Island, New York
When elected officials take the oath of office they swear to protect the constitution. Beyond that as citizens it is our duty to protect free speech.
People who deserve to to be violently attacked and criminally harrassed in most cases do have a right to free speech sans being criminally shut down To often government officials, university leadership, appease criminal shutting down of free speech. If you do not agree with this you need not move to a communist country. Most western democracies outside of the USA do have some sort of hate speech laws these days. Many of not most of these countries also have a rising and significant violent nationalist problem.
_________________
“Self Acceptance is a process not a performance”
“You are autistic enough. And you always have been”
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity.
What defines being "criminally shut down"?
Being turned down for renewal of a contract?
Being banned from a privately-owned website or ISP?
Being told "No Thank You" when offering to give a speech?
Being ignored, challenged or ridiculed for what you have already said?
No, no, no, and ... no.
Prediction: "Fascist" will become a word so overused and misused that it will cease to retain its original meaning.
The word "nazi" is an example. Remember the "Soup Nazi" episode of Seinfeld? "Nazi" devolved into a term that's used by some to refer to someone who is inflexible and dictatorial in their thinking.
In this context, when I use the term 'Fascist', I am referring to a mix of authoritarianism, nativism, nationalism, militarism, open hostility towards democratic traditions and norms, a free press & an independent judiciary, the seamless merger of corporate and State interests, rampant propaganda, explicit exhortation to political violence, scapegoating of minorities with it's attendant racism, bigoty, xenophobia, homophobia, & misogyny, and an appeal to a thoroughly fictitious sense of aggrieved victimhood of the racial majority.
In other words, Trump and the modern Republican Party.
Is that meaning specific enough for you?

Yes it does.
Gab’s Demise Is Just the Beginning of a Horrific New Era of Far-Right Extremism - When it launched in 2016, Gab.com touted itself as one of the last bastions of free speech on the Internet. Two years later, as the site is “de-platformed” in the wake of its connection to the senseless mass murder in Pittsburgh, Gab has become an even more redolent example of how technology is eroding democracy.
Before he opened fire inside the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, killing at least 11 people who had gathered for Shabbat services, Robert Bowers, the alleged shooter, found a safe space to express the anti-Semitic hatred that was consuming him. “There is no #MAGA as long as there is a k*** infestation,” Bowers wrote on Gab.com. On Twitter or Facebook, Bowers’s views would have gotten him banned; on Gab, he fit right in. “Jews are the children of Satan,” read his profile. And toward the end of his post history—filled with even more violent, anti-Semitic and anti-minority content—he increasingly indicated that he would start acting soon. “I can’t sit by and watch my people get slaughtered,” Bowers wrote on Saturday. “Screw your optics, I’m going in.” Moments later, he began his shooting spree...
In practice, however, the site quickly became a safe space for the racist expressions that got users kicked off of Facebook and Twitter. Its blind commitment to so-called free speech permitted any sort of discussion to thrive, even if it was hateful, violent, or anti-Semitic in nature. In a Vice article from April, writer Tom Bennett described his experience signing up for the site. “A quick scroll down the Twitter-like home page and I was met with a picture of Joseph Goebbels, quotes from Mein Kampf, pro-gun and anti-trans memes, and a series of posts by former B.N.P. leader Nick Griffin. This was before I’d followed anyone, reposted anything, or been active in any way. This home page wasn’t based on any preferences of mine that Gab’s algorithm had learned—it was a selection of posts that were popular with other users.” ...
The internal debate over exactly how much hate speech the community could tolerate reflects a broader argument within the right over how to spread their ideas throughout the Internet—whether by “red-pilling”, a.k.a. sneaking fascist, racist, or anti-Semitic views into larger society by presenting them as reasonable alternatives to apparently strident liberal voices (“social-justice warriors“), or by overt action, such as rallies and marches, neo-Nazi imagery, and racist chants. (Donald Trump himself is a controversial figure in this debate, with some on the far right praising him for helping to “red-pill” the “normies,” while fascist activists accuse Trump and the far right of “paralyzing the supply chain” by providing a moderate alternative to full-on Nazism.) The Charlottesville rally in 2017, which left a protester dead, was intended as a direct rebuke to the “optics cucks,” who preferred the former tactic. The debate became a major dividing point, apparently with extreme real-world consequences. Nehlen was a harsh critic of the “optics cucks.” Bowers, too, wrote “screw your optics” before he began his shooting...
For anyone who followed Gab and observed the stridency of its factions, it was little surprise that its commenters quickly celebrated Bowers’s actions. “I can’t wait to hear about how many lampshades the alleged synagogue shooter made out [sic] these jews in Pittsburg,” wrote @EmilyAnderson, followed by three laughing cat emojis; another user predicted that Bowers’s statement—“All these Jews have to die”—would “be a meme as long as the Internet lives. Which wont [sic] be long after this LOL.” ...
... the existence of Gab reflects a larger trend on the right, wherein those banished from mainstream social-media sites create evermore extreme platforms on which to express themselves. Fox News initiated this trend more than two decades ago: the cable channel was explicitly founded to offer a conservative take on the news, while Andrew Breitbart built his namesake site to cater to an even more conservative audience. The bigger the Internet has become, and the lower the cost of entry, the more likely sites like Gab.com and those further afield will proliferate—not just as social hubs, but as an alternate Internet with its attendant-support networks. (Already, far-right crowd-funding sites like Hatreon have popped up as alternatives to GoFundMe and Patreon, though they’re frequently kicked off of major payment platforms.) By insisting that Silicon Valley is unfairly suppressing and maligning the views of his “deplorables,” Trump has effectively created a feedback loop wherein the right’s persecution complex—and its extremism—grows more pronounced each time it is forced to decamp to a new online home.
This is a free (unmoderated) site.
So, fascism = freedom.
_________________
After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.
In this context, when I use the term 'Fascist', I am referring to a mix of authoritarianism, nativism, nationalism, militarism, open hostility towards democratic traditions and norms, a free press & an independent judiciary, the seamless merger of corporate and State interests, rampant propaganda, explicit exhortation to political violence, scapegoating of minorities with it's attendant racism, bigoty, xenophobia, homophobia, & misogyny, and an appeal to a thoroughly fictitious sense of aggrieved victimhood of the racial majority.
In other words, Trump and the modern Republican Party.
Is that meaning specific enough for you?
Specific? The meaning you've given is the opposite. It's broad. Very broad. Not all encompassing, but very broad. You're proving my point and fast-tracking my prediction....
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 39,637
Location: Long Island, New York
Being turned down for renewal of a contract?
Being banned from a privately-owned website or ISP?
Being told "No Thank You" when offering to give a speech?
Being ignored, challenged or ridiculed for what you have already said?
No, no, no, and ... no.
What is “criminally shut down”?
Harassment Law and Legal Definition
Some examples of being criminally shut down are silencing the speaker by physically attacking the person for expressing their “opinion”, rioting to intimidate the speaker and to intimidate those that want to give the speaker a platform, threatening those that want to give the speaker a platform, maliciously hacking their computers.
_________________
“Self Acceptance is a process not a performance”
“You are autistic enough. And you always have been”
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity.
Although Trump has been the most divisive figure in USA political life, he has been a successful unifier of two factions that have never been united before, the alt right and the "normalised" right. At the same time, he has worked hard to increase division, resentment and hatred between the other major groups. This is why the USA is becoming far more dangerous - the far right haters feel legitimised. Trump doesn't care about the consequences and deaths of innocent people which result from his extremely reckless rhetoric. So please consider recent events in that wider context before asking more opening questions such as the one in the quote. What kind of political cultural climate do you want to live in? One of hatred, division and right wing terrorism? Perhaps you do. Perhaps it's exciting to wartch this toxic decay of civil society. (Now you may choose to reiterate your blame-the-Democrats-it's-all-their-fault response).
The youtube channels that promote such hate can and should be "nuked". Youtube (i.e. Google) should be held to account for that messaging if they don't stop it. I seem to remember something about Google, something about
It's long overdue to put that into actual practice.
I'm betting that it won't be Google moderating this content when it's taken down.
_________________
"Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the fading of the suns, and try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."
-Georges Lemaitre
"I fly through hyperspace, in my green computer interface"
-Gem Tos
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| QU bout social cues vs social-emotional reciprocity |
10 Jul 2026, 9:22 am |
| Social Anxiety / Agoraphobia |
01 Aug 2026, 12:06 pm |
| Social Anxiety and Autism |
Yesterday, 2:50 pm |
| Social difficulties & low parental status? |
06 Aug 2026, 11:23 pm |
