ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, September 07, 2017

The three types of free speech

This is a concept that appears to be a particularly difficult one for the binary thinkers of the world to grasp. As I explained in the Darkstream last night, there are three types of free speech:
  • Platonic
  • Public
  • Private
As I have repeatedly explained, I support Public free speech, which is the form protected by the Constitution, reject Private free speech on the basis of private property, and observe that Platonic free speech does not, and has never, existed.

The problem that I see is that Gab is nobly attempting to set its policy on the basis of Platonic free speech, limited only by the law. However, this is setting them up for potential legal trouble, particularly since that policy does not permit them to remove libelous and defamatory speech.

Here is how Andrew Torba expressed their Neo-Platonic policy:

@Voxday, you are fortunate enough to choose who to publish and who can comment on your blog, but Gab is a completely different environment, a platform for free speech for all viewpoints. We do not agree when it comes to censorship. Gab will not be the judge of what is or is not libelous. If a competent court requires us to take down a post because it is deemed libelous, Gab will comply. Libel as we all know is not protected by the first amendment.

This means that Gab is knowingly complicit in publishing these false, malicious, and defamatory statements which I brought to their attention and requested their immediate removal.
Silverdawn · @GTKRWN
9 hours · edited
Everyone stay away from @voxday He is a faggot Talmudic half jew half Mexican Pedophile pretending to be White.

Fabius MaximusPRO · @Fabian_Nazism
8 hours
I heard @voxday is a known pedophile who's viewed more prepubescent boys online than viewers to his own site. Sad

Silverdawn · @GTKRWN
7 hours
Why do you follow a pedophile? are you a pedophile too?

AlphaJedPRO · @AlphaJed
@voxday the libel is still up
But that's not the real problem. The real problem is that unless the identity of the individuals is already known, it is going to be necessary to sue Gab in order to force it to disclose their identity so that they can be served for the libel case that Gab requires in order to take down a post. Which is something I tend to doubt is an aspect of their policy that has been entirely thought through. Fortunately, I have other means of identifying anonymous commenters. VFM, you know what to do.

Regardless, this is something that the Legal Legion of Evil is going to have to discuss before I make any decisions, so I'll be getting in touch with all of you to set up a group meeting later this week. This isn't the only matter we have to discuss, but it is the most important one at the moment. As a Gab supporter, I certainly don't wish to harm Gab in any way; this sort of situation is precisely why I previously advised Andrew to adopt a ban-on-sight policy towards known trolls and troublemakers.

But sometimes people, particularly idealists, need to learn these things for themselves.

Labels: ,

138 Comments:

Blogger Matthew Funk September 07, 2017 5:54 AM  

I'm just watching it now and this comment was perfect.

@TheWarEagle
29:44
The Alt Reich implicitly promotes eternal virginity and in essence, White Genocide.

Blogger rumpole5 September 07, 2017 6:00 AM  

Here is a definition from the website changingminds.org that your detractors might find useful:

"Neurotic projection is perceiving others as operating in ways one unconsciously finds objectionable in yourself."

Although, I'm not sure that the term "unconsciously" would apply.

Anonymous EagleEye September 07, 2017 6:00 AM  

I appreciate your analysis but respectfully disagree. On a basic rhetorical level, it is hard to criticize Google / Youtube / Twitter for deleting posts they don't like, when we do the exact same thing.

>I have advised Andrew to adopt a ban-on-sight policy towards known trolls and troublemakers.

Who defines "trolls?" Who defines "troublemakers?" These are 100% subjective criteria and will result in Gab deleting posts it doesn't like, no different than how Google / Facebook/ Twitter delete things they don't like.

Are we building alt-tech to have free speech for all, or just to turn the tables on the left and censor them instead? Trying to be respectful but I've always disagreed with you strongly on this VD.

Anonymous Icicle September 07, 2017 6:03 AM  

I'm sorry he called you a Jew.

Some things are just uncalled for.

Blogger Al From Bay Shore September 07, 2017 6:05 AM  

A "terms of service" for a platform like Gab could operate off the idea that it is private property and the owner of such is free to dispose of it in a manner of his own choosing. If there is a comment or posting which he does not like, it will be removed. If there is commenter we don't like, he will be removed. Ultimately, all actions of the property owner are his own and he is not required to explain the reasons for any actions. If you find this standard disagreeable then this platform may not be for you.

I know this is vague but it gives room to call balls and strikes based on constantly changing circumstances. Isn't this what umpires do? In spite of their bad calls, in the pre-replay/ review era, most people were okay with human eyes managing baseball games. In my opinion, this makes sense but I could be wrong.

Blogger lyovmyshkin September 07, 2017 6:11 AM  

I'd say that calling people 'Nazis' is equally as defamatory -- possibly more H/T Salon! -- and potentially harmful to the person being smeared. But then again I don't go around doing either because they're both stupid behaviour.

Blogger Abyssus Invocat September 07, 2017 6:20 AM  

And one of his sock puppets called me a "kike". Me, an SSPX Catholic with a pig as an avatar.

Blogger Barbara Collins September 07, 2017 6:23 AM  

What you're proposing will lead to Google-style censorship. If someone uses a cell phone to call up newspapers and call you a pedophile, are they liable for damages if they do not cut off the offender's phone service? I'm not sure a platform like Gab "publishes" anything, I'm not convinced they'd be found liable if you sue them. Hopefully you're not just suing them as an intimidation tactic, but it kinda seems that way.

In any event, I'm sure their TOS includes provisions for banning accounts engaging in threats--aka illegal behavior. Their entire shtick is free speech, why should they cave just bc you are being trolled via a tool they created?

I'll be impressed if you win this lawsuit. Not trying to be rude, but it's weird that you're trying to hamstring the only free speech platform currently available. You know this will be bad for them.

Anonymous Rocklea September 07, 2017 6:27 AM  

Google has to fall under the second type. Google is a map of the internet. How useful would your TomTom be if it refused to tell you the direction to your destination or even denied it's existence?

As for Gab, libel applies both publicly and privately. The question is, is Gab responsible for assessing the veracity of a claim published on their platform? If not then the courts decide. I suspect however that the courts could hold them partially responsible and further find that users of the site have a reasonable expectation of not having their character falsely impugned. Lawsuit waiting to happen.

Anonymous Avalanche September 07, 2017 6:39 AM  

Competing interests: preventing/removing libel(s) vs. a commitment to free speech (which are also competing harms). My question would be: where and how does one draw the line (are we in a theater? Then: "FIRE!") and how does one promulgate an understanding of that line?

Relying on people's "courtesy" won't work. Is courtesy necessary towards an enemy? Might be NICE, might be chosen as as descriptor of SELF ("*I* am courteous, even to liberal shits.") but is calling someone a shit a libel or a plain-old insult? How about calling him a nazi? A pedophile?

There is no easy line; there may not even be a firmer line than: "MY platform, MY line," which I think will make Andrew weep.

Blogger Cataline Sergius September 07, 2017 6:40 AM  

Not a lawyer but having briefly work with the Public Affairs Office I am familiar enough with the issues that I thought that Gab's absolutist position was courting trouble.

I'm surprised it's taken this long for the subject to come up.

Blogger Salt September 07, 2017 6:48 AM  

GAB seems to think itself more a portal than a host. That's an error. This makes for misunderstanding one's relationship to complicity. Koowingly allowing that which is defamatory to remain is akin to shipping what one knows to be illegal. Saying, but I'm not the one who posted it or I'm not the one who shipped it may not make one the prime mover but certainly makes one complicit in its furtherance.

Blogger The Kurgan September 07, 2017 6:51 AM  

There should be a technical solution that sees to it the actual publication of the text/libellous stuff etc is done by the user (this is implicit anyway, but could be added to from a computer software technical perspective perhaps).
But ultimately the question comes down to anonymous speech. If you allow that then you will invariably have injust attacks on say you, go unaswered. If you do not, you have the injust situation of the fear of big brother making you self-censor.

I personally prefer the second option because tyrannical governments invariably fail. Though of course.... millions may die in the interim.

Anonymous glosoli September 07, 2017 6:55 AM  

There is no free speech.
Like liberty, it's non-existent.
An authority will decide on levels of restrictions on what can be said and what can't.

We on the right should be honest with our language and use the term restricted speech.

Blogger Sam September 07, 2017 6:57 AM  

@3
"Who defines "trolls?" Who defines "troublemakers?" These are 100% subjective criteria and will result in Gab deleting posts it doesn't like, no different than how Google / Facebook/ Twitter delete things they don't like.

Are we building alt-tech to have free speech for all, or just to turn the tables on the left and censor them instead? Trying to be respectful but I've always disagreed with you strongly on this VD."

Why exactly do you think 'free speech' was not a value for the overwhelming majority of human existence? If you do not censor people who lie to gain political power, you get leftists in power. The point of all this isn't because free speech is some sort of abstract social good- it is because if you don't stop them, they use this power to kill as many people as possible.

Yes, all of this requires a center of power people are willing to accept as legitimate. Which is why the right generally loses to the left until society falls apart and things re-orientate.

Blogger Felix Bellator September 07, 2017 6:58 AM  

Torba is saying they will censor when a court tells them to do so. He has answered the question "who decides?" for Gab at the moment. That is easier for the Supreme Dark Lord to use the Legal Legion of Evil to help bring justice. But to whom do others turn for justice. Average Joe cannot afford to run to the courts every time he is libeled on the internet. That makes it a bit of Gab against the little guy, which is not a great stance. Perhaps service terms that send you to binding internet arbitration if challenged and the loser pays $50 and gets banned? Make it enough of a penalty to discourage casual libel?

Blogger Alec Rawls September 07, 2017 7:00 AM  

Doesn't section 230 of the Communications Decency Act apply? "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" (47 U.S.C. § 230).

Seems to make Gab's position tenable. They only take down what the courts tell them to, and pass on what information about users the courts tell them to.

libelers are still liable. A few successful suits against libel posted on Gab should go a long way towards deterring more.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 07, 2017 7:01 AM  

The thoughts aren't exactly free either, although they're "freer" than speech.

They aren't free because, like words, thoughts constrain your possibilities. The act of choosing to think about certain things influences your further thinking, and your speech, and eventually your actions.

It's Biblical too, "From the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks." straight into "set the whole course of his life on fire".

Anonymous Athor Pel September 07, 2017 7:06 AM  

"3. Anonymous EagleEye September 07, 2017 6:00 AM
...
Who defines "trolls?" Who defines "troublemakers?" These are 100% subjective criteria and will result in Gab deleting posts it doesn't like, no different than how Google / Facebook/ Twitter delete things they don't like.
...
"


No it is not subjective. If you can't tell when someone is intentionally and obviously lying then you need to start looking at yourself and begin wondering why you have such a problem apprehending objective reality.

Blogger VD September 07, 2017 7:08 AM  

Who defines "trolls?" Who defines "troublemakers?" These are 100% subjective criteria and will result in Gab deleting posts it doesn't like, no different than how Google / Facebook/ Twitter delete things they don't like.

Of course they are. Everyone does that. The only questions are a) who is making the decisions and b) how consistently the make them.

Blogger pdwalker September 07, 2017 7:10 AM  

Goodness! What a #*%*#>¥ minefield!

How do you provide a platform that allows anonymous free, anything goes, speech, that does not run afoul of law, that can also avoid lawsuits when some little puke starts posting horrible things?

Can community guidelines cover everything? "If you post something potentially libelous that is not backed up by fact ..."

I don't think so. It'd be an unending game of whack-a-troll.

Ugh.

Blogger David September 07, 2017 7:13 AM  

Aside from the fact they're lies, libelous statements can cause serious material harm to the target, both financially and personally. Leftists know this which is why they do it with impunity against rightists they want to destroy.

Blogger Valtandor Nought September 07, 2017 7:14 AM  

Torba et al. have probably decided that a true free speech environment is only tenable if the users are able to make themselves anonymous, so as to avoid social consequences for speech that is lawful but, so to speak, out of order.

Not being a lawyer, I'm not sure how that stacks up. "Your Honour, we didn't publish the defamatory statement. We did, however, allow someone else to do so, and we refuse to take measures to help you identify that someone else."

There would be a chance of a precedent being established that, by making website owners responsible for all effectively anonymous content published on their respective sites, puts a real damper on what remains of Internet anonymity.

Blogger Salt September 07, 2017 7:17 AM  

We're in the wilderness of incivility. The gate out of it is apparently in high contention.

Blogger Wanderer September 07, 2017 7:20 AM  

This is stupid. If some troll on Gab calls you a faggot jew then just mute them. Self-moderation is better than having some asshole police content for you. If Gab (and alt-tech in general) starts deleting trolls and acting like reverse SJWs then you can stick a fork in the whole alt-tech idea.

Blogger wreckage September 07, 2017 7:23 AM  

Yeah, this is a pretty obvious "free speech is stupid, if it's not OK to commit libel it's also not OK to use the wrong gender pronoun" setup.

They genuinely think they're being clever.

Anonymous Rocklea September 07, 2017 7:24 AM  

"But to whom do others turn for justice. Average Joe cannot afford to run to the courts every time he is libeled on the internet."

No Comebacks by Frederick Forsyth. It's a collection of short stories,one of them being Absolute Privilege. A business owner is libeled in the local paper, everyone believes it and his business is ruined. He has no resources to sue, even if he did and wins, the process is lengthy and costly. So he tracked down the journalist and punched him in the face.

In court he claimed absolute privilege (British courts), a right where one is able to explain ones actions openly in court while excepting a guilty verdict. He invited the Press, his reputation was restored at the cost of a minor conviction and the journalist was made to look the fool.

How to win this at the moral level?

Blogger VD September 07, 2017 7:26 AM  

Not being a lawyer, I'm not sure how that stacks up. "Your Honour, we didn't publish the defamatory statement. We did, however, allow someone else to do so, and we refuse to take measures to help you identify that someone else."

That's exactly the dilemma being created. My expectation is that they will eventually establish a legal review team that will be responsible for determining whether a statement is sufficiently libelous to justify deletion, combined with harsh penalties for the responsible party if a statement is found to be potentially libelous. I would expect past defamation awards to be the basis, in a case like this, compensation has ranged from $10,000 to $2.2 million.

Anonymous basementhomebrewer September 07, 2017 7:26 AM  

Not sure which one is the burnt fool reaching their hands twoards the fire is in this scenario. The Alt-reichtards who just finished delivering a blow to the only platform that will allow them or Torba who hasn't figured out that the alt-reichtards aren't worth it. This adds a tick to the box of the alt-reichtards being undercover leftists trying to sink the right. The media has tried to ignore Gab and since that hasn't worked now they are having their sabateurs do their thing.

Blogger wreckage September 07, 2017 7:27 AM  

There is no problem with banning libel. Libel has always been unlawful. The confusion over free speech these days is the result of plummeting education standards, and probably IQ.

Freedom of movement doesn't apply to other people's property. Neither does freedom of speech. If it does material harm it's illegal; this isn't a violation of freedom, it's a necessary protection of freedom.

Blogger VD September 07, 2017 7:28 AM  

If Gab (and alt-tech in general) starts deleting trolls and acting like reverse SJWs then you can stick a fork in the whole alt-tech idea.

That's ridiculous. People don't want Alt-Tech so they can be harassed by trolls. They want to be allowed to engage in normal speech without being harassed for it.

Anonymous Rhino September 07, 2017 7:31 AM  

What happened to muting them?

Blogger wreckage September 07, 2017 7:34 AM  

It's typical lefty aggression patterns.
"He said he was for free speech until I spent a week libeling ad harassing him, hur, hur, hur."
Which reminds me of the implicitly right-wing rapist is lefty fiction "She said she was sexually liberated but she sure didn't like me raping her, hur, hur, hur."

SJW's always, oh what is it? Inject? Protect? Gosh, I can nearly remember....

Anonymous basementhomebrewer September 07, 2017 7:35 AM  

I trust this is all working to enrage the SDL so that he tears into Anglin more visciously Saturday (assuming he showes up). I am tempted to make a comment about low volume and needing a better mic just to stoke the fire a little more.

Anonymous Rhino September 07, 2017 7:38 AM  

Probably ought to read Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

It protects Gab from liability for republishing comment. Don't know how it affects subpoenas (court ordered doxing) that would have the effect of forcing them to edit content in order to avoid receiving subpoenas.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 07, 2017 7:39 AM  

"How do you provide a platform that allows anonymous free, anything goes, speech, that does not run afoul of law, that can also avoid lawsuits when some little puke starts posting horrible things?"

Realistically, you can't for anything much like the internet, for a couple of reasons.

The first reason is that the best you're going to be able to do is some kind of crypto-blockchain DNS type setup. It's going to be relatively slow and cumbersome, and you'd have to get keys either before you get kicked off of the regular net, or by telephoning or physically transferring them.

The second reason is that a lot of people use the net because it's easy, fast, and convenient. Darknet 2.0 probably isn't going to be anyone's approximation of ANY of those things anytime soon, if ever.

TL;DR: #1: It'd be slower, less useful and more technical to get into.
#2: Less people will use it because of #1.

Nationalized-nets was pretty much inevitable from day one. The best you're ever going to have is some kind of hege-net or alliance-net where countries have little enough objection to allies' info to make no significant boundaries, or have had their boundaries forcibly ripped out by stronger neigbours.

Blogger Paul September 07, 2017 7:44 AM  

Libel, like rape and murder, is a determination made after the fact of due process in a court of law, not before.

If VD truly believes he has been libeled rather than merely insulted online as all of us have been, I would encourage him to proceed with legal action in the same way that Kurt Eichenwald pursued John Rivello via Twitter, attempting and successfully compelling Twitter to give up its client.

If VD's case is as sound as he thinks it is, this will easily satisfy all parties except the offender while establishing a citeable Gab precedent instructive for all.

Blogger Demonic Professor El September 07, 2017 7:57 AM  

As for libel/defamation, there is also the implicit harm that defamation does to one's business and perhaps life. The parties going on Gab saying these things intentionally lie to do harm to business or person?

As @35 Rhino points out though, Gab is protected as a venue. However, they can be liable if they defend defamatory statements (a la Gawker).

Why so much clear defamation skirts by is because it can be labelled as "opinion" and the requisite weasel words (It appears, It seems, etc.).

Blogger Nate September 07, 2017 7:57 AM  

"That's ridiculous. People don't want Alt-Tech so they can be harassed by trolls. They want to be allowed to engage in normal speech without being harassed for it."

Bingo.

Blogger VD September 07, 2017 7:59 AM  

I would encourage him to proceed with legal action in the same way that Kurt Eichenwald pursued John Rivello via Twitter, attempting and successfully compelling Twitter to give up its client.

Yes, I am aware of the precedent.

What happened to muting them?

Libel and defamation aren't about YOU not seeing it, it's about everyone else.

Anonymous VFM #6306 September 07, 2017 8:01 AM  

What happened to muting them?

Irrelevant. Muting only reacts to libel so you don't hear more of it. It does nothing to stop or punish it.

Egads, are people getting dumber during this thing or are they simply speaking their minds more? Either way, it provides perfect justification for more silence.

Blogger Nate September 07, 2017 8:07 AM  

The fact is there is a certain kind of person that just wants to burn everything down. Everything. He destroys everything. Even those things that help him.

There is another kind of person who is just so amazingly stupid he cannot reliably foresee any consequences of any of his actions and never bothers to even try. He has no impulse control and he just says or does the first thing that pops into his mind.

Alt-Retard is rank and file comes from those two groups of people. Damn near exclusively.

Blogger ZhukovG September 07, 2017 8:08 AM  

I note that one of the examples cited above suggests that the poster has knowledge of specific crimes being committed against children. In many jurisdictions there are laws which require mandatory reporting of such crimes.

If applicable, the accusation and identity of the accuser would need to be passed to the authorities for investigation. If, as is obviously the case here, the accusation is false then the accuser would possibly be guilty of 'Perverting the Course of Justice and Wasting Police Time'.

I am, obviously, not a lawyer but I wonder if a line has been crossed.

In any event, I think Gab should ban trolls of this nature.

As to free speech and other liberties, I am of the opinion that the American Nationalist successor state will have to, in its constitution, specifically deny civil liberties to the Globalist Left, both individually and organizationally.

Anonymous Osage Orangeman September 07, 2017 8:11 AM  

Gab should have a Call-out button when a statement of fact is disputed. This would force a debate in a virtual arena called the octagon where everyone can watch but only the accuser, the defender, and a moderator can comment. A jury of random gabbers could vote on the verdict. The loser would have a strike, have "convicted troll" listed by their name in future comments, and after two or three strikes removed.

Anonymous VFM #6306 September 07, 2017 8:13 AM  

There are NO weasel words in the libel that is going on unchecked. This is about as cut and dry as libel gets, and it it is really too bad that Andrew Torba doesn't comprehend this. Relying on irritating his host and abandoning his property rights in order to play slave to an impossible ideal for marketing purposes while abandoning his agency is a mistake I'd rather not see him make, for his sake.

Dying on Libel Hill defending Fake Right provocateurs is not going to make Free Speech magically exist.

Anonymous krymneth September 07, 2017 8:34 AM  

I've never been able to muster up much excitement about Gab, because I think that many, if not the vast majority, of issues with Twitter are structural, based on the mechanisms used to try to create the community and structure the messages flowing within it. It may be the case that the way in which Twitter is collapsing is driven by Twitter-based SJWs, but I think there's a decent chance that any attempt to structure a system like Twitter's is still inevitably going to collapse; the only question is how. Which makes it hard to be excited about Gab.

Come to think of it, the Alt-Right has exactly the terminology to describe the fundamental flaw: Diversity + Proximity = Bad Interactions, which lead to poor engagement, which lead to people leaving, which eventually leads to evaporative cooling and collapse (in value, if not community size, though probably both). Twitter and Gab fundamentally pile everybody into one big room and make it so that any member can trivially reach any other; is it any wonder that the end result is exactly what the Alt-Right fears in meat-space when that happens, only faster and more fluidly?

Unfortunately, as usual, identifying the problem is easy... well... relatively easy, since I seem to be an iconoclast on this point... but still, much easier than coming up with a solid solution. There are bits of pieces of successful fragmentation I've seen out in the wild; for instance, "Reddit" is full-on a similarly-SJW-guided collapsing disaster as a whole, but individual subreddits who are basically just independent websites can still be valuable (as long as they don't piss off the SJWs). But I don't know how to prevent such a site from inevitably collecting too many people into the dominant subreddits and experiencing this form of collapse either. Somehow people need to be very gently guided into partitioning themselves, somehow discouraged from trying to form communities of tens of thousands of people, without people rebelling when the communities they may want to join (statistically the largest ones, for a lot of reasons) "reject" them and without making it impossible to cross the critical threshold of community size for it to be sustainable, and give it mechanisms to not drop in size below that threshold. It's not obvious what that would be to me.

(Maybe something about making a community easy to start, but as it ramps up start making it harder to post; a simple idea in reddit terms would be to make it so that newbies start out with their posts at 0, then -1, then -2, then eventually all the way down past the point where the messages get auto-collapsed, meaning that anyone who wants to get to "Full member" status must write well enough to escape that? This idea has some immediate problems (just ask "How would I game that system if I came late?" and ask what it would look like to start accepting those people, and also what it would do to the community for all the incoming blood to consist of people who successfully gamed their way through that), but it's at least a stab in the direction of some thoughts, since I hate to offer a problem without even an attempt at a thought for a solution.)

Blogger Robert Jones September 07, 2017 8:39 AM  

What exactly are you proposing he do? The moment you set up a censorship board or a code of conduct with a committee ever SJW for miles will immediately converge to take it over. Nine times in ten, they will succeed. Then Gab becomes just another Twitter.

Then what?

Blogger VD September 07, 2017 8:42 AM  

What exactly are you proposing he do? The moment you set up a censorship board or a code of conduct with a committee ever SJW for miles will immediately converge to take it over. Nine times in ten, they will succeed. Then Gab becomes just another Twitter.

Read SJWAL. None of this is new, unexepected, or unanticipated. You have to keep the SJWs out. Having no structure, no standards, and no management is not a viable strategy.

Blogger Cataline Sergius September 07, 2017 8:46 AM  

What should be remembered here is that Vox is still friendly to Gab.

What if this situation comes up with somebody who isn't at all friendly to Gab, wants to take them to the cleaners and put them out of business?

They don't exactly have bottomless pockets over there.

Anonymous Perfunctory Solecism September 07, 2017 8:50 AM  

I miss Usenet.

Blogger Robert Jones September 07, 2017 8:51 AM  

Hypocrisy is weak to sincerity, even if it's the sincerity of the insane. If a free speech crusader backs down on his ideals there's an excellent chance SJWs will manage to weasel or bully him into supporting theirs.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan September 07, 2017 8:55 AM  

Platonic free speech existed for just a few decades while the left burnt our house down, it's going away, good.

We cannot win that game because we represent high culture and civilization which are the epitome of discrimination.

But the conservative intellectuals are stuck in the bright lights of their own brilliance deep within the shit pit of the Left's making. To think of being FREE from the Left is unthinkable to those high IQ geniuses one who know in their hearts that the next essay will turn shit into gold.

Anonymous Jack September 07, 2017 8:56 AM  

@42 This is true. The far left - antifa, black bloc, commie groups - are also in large part drawn from these segments of the population.

Anonymous kHz September 07, 2017 8:56 AM  

Gab is already structurally superior to Twitter in a number of ways, or in potential, not least of which is that it's much easier for groups to self-segregate, (channels, topics, chatrooms, lists, etc.), and more interesting to navigate.

Will be interesting to see how this plays out. There's certainly no shame in having an ideal conform to reality.

Blogger Chris Mallory September 07, 2017 8:58 AM  

Is "Vox Day" a public figure?
Is "Vox Day" a character, "The Evil Dark Lord of Evil who drinks fruity concoctions out of the skulls of his enemies"
Are the people making these insults in a position to know if they are true or not?
Are the insults opinion?
Can "actual malice" be proved?

Anonymous Luca Brayson September 07, 2017 8:59 AM  

Vox what's your end game here? You've advised us to call people pedophiles on multiple occasions and I know you're not fazed by a few losers calling you names. Plus, being a game designer, you can see ahead that even if you win you're not gonna benefit much from suing a bunch of guys who live in their mom's basements.

Are you trying to get Gab to change? Is this an offensive campaign against the alt-reich? Are you shooting a few boats to warn the whole of Anglin's followers not to make a run at you. Is this just sigma being sigma?

Blogger Heian-kyo Dreams September 07, 2017 9:08 AM  

@49
That's not a "what if", that's a "when".

Perhaps a betting pool is in order, with some of the proceeds going to Gab's legal fund?

Blogger andrew clark September 07, 2017 9:13 AM  

so, basically, if the alt right, is not willing to fall in line with the globalist agenda, then you need to shut it all down

sounds jewish

Blogger Cail Corishev September 07, 2017 9:14 AM  

I figured this is the point you were trying to make when I saw that quote from Torba on /pol/ last night. Gab is flirting with the same mess the hosting/domain companies are (or the NFL in the context of domestic abuse): if you profess a general commitment to Platonic free speech but then switch to Private free speech when threatened by someone who can destroy you, I'm no legal expert, but it seems you're setting yourself up legally. Your users will expect one thing (Platonic) because that's how you've marketed yourself, but in reality you can only promise Private.

All these companies used to leave it up to the legal system: "If we get a legal takedown order for your content or transmissions, we obey it. Otherwise, we don't care what you do, and we don't want to care." As soon as they start censoring to please private interests in the absence of a court order, they open themselves up to charges on all the things they don't censor.

I sympathize that they were forced into it, and I realize when companies were making these lofty promises, they didn't know the landscape was going to change like it did. But it's something they're going to have to figure out, because a stance of "We don't censor speech except when we really have to" isn't worth all that much. Ultimately that's no different than Twitter's stance or anyone else's, except that they have SJWs enforcing theirs internally and SJWs are forcing yours from the outside.

Blogger Cataline Sergius September 07, 2017 9:14 AM  

@57

My point exactly.

Anonymous Philalethes September 07, 2017 9:15 AM  

"There has never been an objective being. Knowing this, the rest is known." – Upanishads

"Objectivity" is also a myth. There's no help for it; in the end you must do your own thinking – or allow others to do it for you, in which case you will certainly never be free.

As for what's VD's "end game", seems to me it's this: to get people to think, first of all. And then, make decisions and act from intelligence, rather than feelz.

But maybe I'm projecting….

Blogger valiance. September 07, 2017 9:17 AM  

good darkstream.

here's a pdf of tragedy and hope: http://www.carrollquigley.net/pdf/Tragedy_and_Hope.pdf
there are some good youtube vids of his lectures as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nak-5nwL2Lk

will say I still think Nazis were on the Right and not the Left, but I didn't see the earlier debate so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Anonymous BBGKB September 07, 2017 9:26 AM  

have advised Andrew to adopt a ban-on-sight policy towards known trolls and troublemakers

So much for my video on how to start a fire with just a koran, potassium permanganate & bacon grease

Anonymous Philalethes September 07, 2017 9:27 AM  

As regards the distinction between "public" and "private", keep in mind that the corporation – any corporation – is a creature of the State. Now that practically everybody who wishes to do any kind of interpersonal business has been enticed – more or less forced, really, since corporations have such huge advantages over truly private entities – into becoming State entities (do you have a Social Security number?), there is practically no truly "private" activity anymore in our world.

Anonymous Naga September 07, 2017 9:27 AM  

You forced a response from Torba, Anglin, and whoever else is watching. Well played, for a duo. I don't think Anglin or his crowd will change, even after the 'debate', because Anglin's really looking like a poser and there is no acceptable alternative to him. Torba also requires more encouragement; I'm curious if your people are capable of such a thing or if you only agitate and wait.

Blogger BunE22 September 07, 2017 9:30 AM  

If any of us make a written comment that muslims are pedophiles does that leave us open to libel and defamation charges?

I don't know who made the comments about Vox but they wanted to get under his skin and succeeded.

Blogger andrew clark September 07, 2017 9:30 AM  

If you are all too sensitive for Gab, then why dont you all go back to your left leaning circles at Twitter?

If you don't like free speech, and you feel that you should be personally policing other peoples opinions, Head back to Twitter. the place is designed with you lot in mind.

Blogger Student in Blue September 07, 2017 9:31 AM  

will say I still think Nazis were on the Right and not the Left, but I didn't see the earlier debate so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You should give it a shot.

Also here's some posts from Vox detailing why Nazis are on the left:
The Left-wing Nazi, from 2004(!)
From the Nazi's mouth
The Fake Right, VD references the 2004 article
Yes, Virginia, Hitler was a Leftist
The economic socialism of Nazi Germany

There's more. Just do a search for Nazi and left, or national socialism and left in the search bar.

Blogger bw September 07, 2017 9:32 AM  

As for what's VD's "end game"

Dominion.

Someone's going to have it. Who shall it be, and what?

I still think Nazis were on the Right

But of course. All Socialists are Right.

Blogger andrew clark September 07, 2017 9:32 AM  

Reality check:

"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."

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act

Blogger andrew clark September 07, 2017 9:37 AM  

the National Socialists are really left wing argument is horse shit.

Start with this.
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea, is no democracy but it is still in the name regardless.
National Socialism, uses tenets from both The Left and The right.
This is why it is referred to as "The Third Position"

It is neither left or right, it is somewhere in the middle.

But you are all probably too intelligumunt to understand these points.

Blogger Cail Corishev September 07, 2017 9:41 AM  

Seems to make Gab's position tenable. They only take down what the courts tell them to, and pass on what information about users the courts tell them to.

As far as I know, Gab received no court order regarding the Anglin post. That's the whole point. Yes, there's a well-established system for handling legal orders. My ISP receives DMCA takedown orders on a regular basis, and they follow them to the letter. If they receive a subpoena for data or a court order to take something down, they just do it. They leave those judgments up to the legal system, because they don't want to be in the legal business. They're not equipped for it, and frankly, it would be impossible to do proactively, so the best they could do would be to respond to endless private complaints. They'd need a substantial legal team that would always try to stay in step with what the actual courts would decide if either party of a dispute took it to actual court. That's not the business they want to be in.

I don't think it's the business Gab wanted to be in either. But it's the one they're signing up for if they take down posts based on private -- not court-ordered -- complaints. It may not be possible to offer Platonic free speech the way Gab wanted to, unless you're a public utility like a phone company, because a private company has no recourse if other private companies (like registrars) decide they don't want to do business with it.

Blogger Heian-kyo Dreams September 07, 2017 9:41 AM  

At some point these Stormer tard shenanigans are going to drive away a chunk of the current Gab user base and Gab will be a haven for white supremacists, just like the MSM keeps claiming.

On the way out, Gabbers will wonder why their feeds are full of da JOOOOOs and dicpics.

Blogger BunE22 September 07, 2017 9:42 AM  

If any of us make a written comment that muslims are pedophiles does that leave us open to libel and defamation charges?

I don't know who made the comments about Vox but they wanted to get under his skin and succeeded.

Blogger John rockwell September 07, 2017 9:43 AM  


''The Alt Reich implicitly promotes eternal virginity and in essence, White Genocide.''

Or its no non-whites in my bathhouse.

Anonymous Looking Glass September 07, 2017 9:47 AM  

I can see Gab's perspective on this. The Mute Function is a de-escalation tool, but some forced removal because of specific Legal complaints will crib in from the sides. That's okay, as some of this stuff isn't exactly cut & dry in Law.

The other little wrinkle is that Gab is looking to rapidly iterate into a much more de-centralized form. The Mute Function already causes a lot of self-segregation, it'll get a bit more from here.

Anonymous NZT September 07, 2017 9:48 AM  

Marsh v Alabama established that when private property rights (on property open to the public) conflict with free speech rights, the latter take precedence.

As for Gab, I for one would instantly quit (and I'm 100% certain a ton of others would too) if they adopted a policy of banning people for "offensive" but legal speech, let alone "preemptively banning known trolls and troublemakers", which is worse than anything even Twitter does. I respect that they are trying to seize the moral high ground that Twitter/Facebook long since abandoned, and as long as they stick to that I think they'll succeed long term.

The issue around the Anglin post that got taken down isn't really a "censorship precedent"; Torba acknowledged that Gab's infrastructure providers have some level of veto power over what can be posted to the site because they can always take the site down. He doesn't like this and is actively working to eventually change it, but that doesn't undermine the basic idealism of what Gab is doing. If Torba himself started censoring legal speech it would be a totally different case.

Ultimately all social media platforms should be held to a strict 1A standard. An expedited process for challenging libelous posts would be a reasonable compromise, but these corporations should not have any legal right to censor anything on specious grounds of "offensiveness".

Blogger SirGroggy September 07, 2017 9:51 AM  

My Dark Lord, you have changed my mind. I have been a free speech fundamentalist but I have now been convinced by your last 3 Darkstreams that the position is untenable.

Those last 3 Darkstreams were brilliant, actually. This perspective on free speech, under close examination, is markedly superior and now shows that the prevailing debate is a false dichotomy, between the 'anti hate speech' SJWs on one side, and the free speech fundamentalism which is fashionable on the other side.

Ignore the Supreme Dark Lord at your peril, for he is a very wise Dark Lord.

Anonymous Looking Glass September 07, 2017 9:52 AM  

It also strikes me that most users that would go for Defamation will quickly run afoul of the Harassment rules of Gab's TOS and get booted for it.

Blogger Weouro September 07, 2017 9:57 AM  

Any liberty-based system of authority is self-contradictory. Free speech means MY preferences prevail, whatever they may be. It's an evil concept, totally detached from the good, the true and the beautiful.

Blogger Student in Blue September 07, 2017 9:57 AM  

@71. andrew clark
Start with this.
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea, is no democracy but it is still in the name regardless.
National Socialism, uses tenets from both The Left and The right.


It must be hard to start with two presuppositions that work against each other. But I guess that's just my privilege as an intelligumunt person.

Anonymous Jack September 07, 2017 9:59 AM  

@75 "Or its no non-whites in my bathhouse."

It seems that most if not all of these pagan nazi groups are riddled with homosexuals. As a general rule, if they're not explicitly Christian or pro-Christian, they're degenerate. A lot of the alt-reich grew out of the 80s and 90s neofolk scene in which queer bands like Death in June and Current 93 used nazi and fascist aesthetics, because it was "transgressive" and because they had Hitler youth fetishes.

Blogger SirGroggy September 07, 2017 10:01 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger SirGroggy September 07, 2017 10:03 AM  

Are those people on Gab defaming the Dark Lord Alt-Reich acolytes, going in to bat for their fallen messiah?

If so, then they are behaving in a manner which lives up to their reputation and does not defy the Left's characterisation of them, but rather conforms to it all the worst expectations, and helps to cement their shunned pariah status as political lepers.

Blogger Cail Corishev September 07, 2017 10:04 AM  

I miss Usenet.

It's still there. I still run a server myself, though I rarely use it because most of my former groups are a wasteland. There's no reason it couldn't be used for the kind of discussions that take place on blogs and web forums (in fact, it's far better suited for that). You can't reach the normies with it, though, and you can't build your organization into the Most Popular Right-Wing Site with it. Alexa doesn't even rank it!

Blogger Heian-kyo Dreams September 07, 2017 10:22 AM  

@79
Torba's public statement has pretty much stated that harassment is not a violation of the TOS.

Blogger Quilp September 07, 2017 10:32 AM  

@86. This is your grande strategy- calling Vox a pedo over and over on multiple sites, hoping it "sticks" somehow? No wonder Charlottesville was such a fustercluck, complete disaster. I'm pretty much just a casual observer to all this, but I can tell you that the view from the outside has you appearing even worse than the valid reasons Vox gave for wanting you driven from the alt right.
Even if a venn diagram showed quite an overlap in areas of agreement between yourself and other unaffiliated people on the right such as myself, we would either want you driven out before considering ourselves part of the group, or just walk away quickly. You have all the maturity to be really big in a user created Yahoo! Chatroom, its too bad that window has closed on you.

Anonymous c matt September 07, 2017 10:36 AM  

You don't necessarily have to "sue" GAB - you may be able to simply serve them with pre-suit discovery requesting they disclose the identity of the libelers. Most states allow for this type of discovery.

Blogger bw September 07, 2017 10:38 AM  

no non-whites in my bathhouse

heh

Anonymous Rum Raisin September 07, 2017 10:41 AM  

I support Gab and Torba. However, Vox is right.

Gab's policy, and the way they're sticking to it, is a form of purity spiral. It's noble, but ultimately doomed.

Gab needs to reprioritize. If you're going to put yourself on the line for a principle, then make it the truth. Free speech isn't the greatest good, truth is. If you care about the truth and the greatest number of people being exposed to it, then the decision to censor judiciously is natural.

Truth > free speech.

Anonymous c matt September 07, 2017 10:55 AM  

If Gab (and alt-tech in general) starts deleting trolls and acting like reverse SJWs then you can stick a fork in the whole alt-tech idea.

What's wrong with acting like reverse SJWs? Wouldn't that bring balance to the internet universe? And you wouldn't have to act like reverse SJWs - you could simply act like responsible adult human beings - delete/ban the trolls, but allow real argument (unlike SJWs). The real challenge would be work load. No doubt GAB may get a few wrong here and there, but it seems to work for most sites that have commenting policies.

Blogger Wynn Lloyd September 07, 2017 11:02 AM  

Good on you for supporting the society.
I follow ICKSP but I respect SSPX as the cornerstone.

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents September 07, 2017 11:11 AM  

I miss Usenet.

It's still there. I still run a server myself, though I rarely use it because most of my former groups are a wasteland.

Google Groups still exists. Yahoo Groups may still exist, but Yahoo messed around with pretty much everything to the point of uselessness. Unmoderated Groups are a wasteland, being a Group mod is time consuming and tedious for any big number of participants. But it's all still there, along with listserves.

You can't reach the normies with it, though, and you can't build your organization into the Most Popular Right-Wing Site with it.

It's not the Dark web but it might as well be in terms of access.

Anonymous Rum Raisin September 07, 2017 11:21 AM  

In terms of growing their product, one practical problem Gab is facing is that the kooks and creeps are often the Welcome Wagon.

Those who join Gab are immediately greeted by neo Nazis, white supremacists, and flat earth conspiracists. It can be a tidal wave of autistic vulgarity and shocking rhetoric. For most of the people here, that's not a problem, but for normies it is a significant barrier. It confirms to them what the media is saying about Gab, that it's a scary haven for the worst people.

Gab is committed to both free speech and becoming a platform for everyone. It sounds great on paper, but as so often happens when you have ideals, you eventually find out that some of them are mutually exclusive.

Anonymous 5343 Kinds of Deplorable September 07, 2017 11:21 AM  

And you wouldn't have to act like reverse SJWs - you could simply act like responsible adult human beings - delete/ban the trolls, but allow real argument (unlike SJWs).

Exactly. The major problem with Google / Twitter / whatever is not that they ban trolls, but that they police the narrative.

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents September 07, 2017 11:29 AM  

Some commenters keep on discussing this in US legal terms. But international platforms are exposed to more than just the US legal system, as Goolag has discovered to its cost. For now the governments that really want to police the net are doing so with national firewalls; China, soon Turkey, etc.

How possible is it for the European equivalent of a US SJW to use the laws of European countries to go after individuals on social media, or even entities such as gab? I don't know, but it's possible we'll be finding out in a few years. Also remember that ICANN is no longer under US control. It's now a committee, a sort of mini-UN, in charge.

Blogger tz September 07, 2017 11:34 AM  

Have you not been similarly on Twitter which has a larger audience. How did Twitter respond and would you invoke the LLoE there, or say, Disqus comments, etc. Facebook including private fora?

Trolls calling names on Gab? How much real damages are they causing ("libeled", but awarded $1)? Emotional suffering? Gab needs to be an alt-right safe space?

"Words are Violence" so you can do lawfare?

You didn't sue the SF/F writers though that was more libelous and there were measurable damages. Irony is suing Gab over trollibel while letting your expulsion stand. Has the statute of limitations expired?

I believe Gab does ban doxxing and true threats. If you are clearly going to be financially damaged by a post, I think there would be no problem taking it down, but libel is tricky.

When does an insult become libel? Have you libeled Scalzi by calling him McRapey?. If you posted "John Scalzi is a rapist" linking to his "I'm a rapist" post on Gab, should it be taken down for libel? Your own rhetoric and invective may cross those lines you wish to use to only ban trolls.

There can't be a "Friend of Torba" or other arbitrary exception to the rules for Gab to retain #SpeakFreely.

Libel is a different matter from spammers and trolls. It involves actual damage you can prove in court and has a high standard of proof, especially for public figures. See Sarah Palin.

Blogger DJ | AMDG September 07, 2017 11:41 AM  

I think VD explained and properly defended his position already, and too many of these comments are ignoring that.

He is demanding consistency, not free speech. Gab has declared they will only censor when courts...... But that's clearly not true by their own admission when they censored based on what a registrar threatened to do. Further, courts have more than defined what is libel and defamatory, yet Gab allows such posts even when called out.

Finally, VD has never said his positions on any of these topics is about fairness. It's about winning. It's about using "their own rules" against "them." I'm sick of social media platforms in general, and I also hate war of all kinds, so I don't often play in these minefields. But damn, consistency, consistency, consistency.

Whether you agree with him or not, VD is the most consistent voice out here. Calling him a hypocrite is just dumb.

Blogger DJ | AMDG September 07, 2017 11:49 AM  

1). He didn't say anything about suing Gab only having to use the law to force Gab to provide the ID of those posters he would accuse of libel.

2) The claim against the SFWA was never about libel as I recall. It was about inconsistency of applying rules.

3) Scalzi himself wrote about him being guilty of sexual harassment (in an effort to make a point, imo, that all men are rapists), and VD has always pointed to that claim by JS when calling him McRapey or whatever. Rhetoric is not lying or libeling. It's using truth to persuade emotions....which was what Scalzi was trying to do with his post! but failed.

Damn. Do people just not pay attention?

Blogger DJ | AMDG September 07, 2017 11:52 AM  

Yes

Anonymous Looking Glass September 07, 2017 11:53 AM  

@99 DJ | AMDG

Gab removes/bans for Criminally Liable speech. It's Civil Liability speech that's the wonky part that's going to need some fine-tuning over time. This is just the growing pains with any platform. The Up-vote/Down-vote stuff was a much bigger issue.

The actually important thing that Gab has to take the Banhammer to, quickly & consistently, is the Bots. Those are actually what ruin places.

Blogger DJ | AMDG September 07, 2017 11:59 AM  

Not true. You did not read Torba's article on Medium if you believe that.

Anonymous BBGKB September 07, 2017 12:25 PM  

no non-whites in my bathhouse

Where is your bathhouse? Asking for a friend.

Blogger Elder Son September 07, 2017 1:49 PM  

If you are wondering why we are, where we are, you can thank the absolutism of "free-speech".

Just not YOUR free-speech. You can shut down your adversaries, or don't. Idea's and words have consequences, which often lead to war, and the war is on you, which will inevitably lead to bloodshed on you. The fact is, they have broke your legs, and they have picked your pockets. And you are just going to keep letting them do it, in the name of "free-speech"?

Words can never hurt me? Words put into action put you where you are. A mostly bloodless coup that has destroyed traditional American morality, freedom, and liberty. Because muh free-speech absolutism. How is all that rational, moral free-speech working out for you, when all that new-speak has saturated and infested every institution in America, and the New America being the propagater of worldwide New Speak Babelism?

The devil is laughing. And you can be assured that he is all for "free-speech" too. While you all play nice and fuzzy because muh free-speech.

Why, I can't hit them back! If I do, then I'll be just like them! And, and, and, then I lose the moral high-ground!

They don't give a f**k about your moral high-ground as they infest young tender minds with muh free-speech. Keep giving them the incentive while lame-assing, "We might not like what you say, but muh free-speech, and we'll fight to the death for your right to infest young tender minds with your babelist bullshit!"

Free-speech absolutism is not the moral high-ground, it is your death. And the death of nations.

Come, let us reason together? Evil exists, and it is enticing, eat-drink-and be merry, anything goes, and you give them the platform while proclaiming muh free-speech. Because you refuse to shut them down. Because you think you are being holier than thou proclaiming muh free-speech absolutism.

Blogger Elder Son September 07, 2017 2:03 PM  

Put a strongman in the house, or don't. The thief comes not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy.

Blogger DonReynolds September 07, 2017 2:18 PM  

I do not know where certain individuals got the idea that Free Speech in any form included the right of anonymity. It does not. Say whatever you feel you need to say, but expect to personally OWN it. This is especially true on the internet.

It seems that Free Speech for some individuals has become Vandalism, that disgusting and destructive graffiti that low life inflict with a can of spray paint by night. No, it is not art, regardless of the skill of the work. It is theft. A "canvass" stolen from private or public ownership to make a billboard for gangland advertising.

My personal rule is very simple.
1) Never write anything that you would never want published all over the Media, with your name, address, and phone number.
2) Never write anything that you would not want everyone in your family to read...including your kids, grand kids, parents, and siblings.
3) Never write anything you would not be proud to own later, because you just might have it tied around your neck....even after you are dead.
4) There is no casual speech and what you think is just entertaining bs has a way of becoming very serious later. Be very selective about your jokes and never tell a joke where you do not know who listens. (Earl Butz was a good example of what not to do.)

5) Overcome the common perception that the Truth of what you say is a defense, when accused of Libel. That is simply not true. The Truth can also be Libel. So never think that the Truth is somehow a shield for malicious intent to do harm.

(Example: You may know that a female student in your class had a surgical abortion last week. You may know it is the truth, for whatever reason. Yes, it would be libel for you to write that Truth for others to read....because it would be a malicious truth and you had malice intent to do harm, without any privilege to do so. Yes, there are people the law permits to libel by privilege. Your former employers have such a privilege.)

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents September 07, 2017 2:24 PM  

@106
I do not know where certain individuals got the idea that Free Speech in any form included the right of anonymity. It does not.

Tell "Publius" and "Federal Farmer" and a host of other anonymous & pseudoanonymous writers in history.

Say whatever you feel you need to say, but expect to personally OWN it. This is especially true on the internet.

Prudent advice. But some will choose to ignore it.

Say, was it really illegal to play a song on the radio with the word "horse" in 1969? How about 1971? Asking for a Boomer friend.

Blogger Woo September 07, 2017 2:24 PM  

We get it Vox, you do not want to be a leader but you will waste as much time and effort as it takes to defend you fragile gamma ego.

Blogger Woo September 07, 2017 2:26 PM  

Threatening to sue Gab! Gamma rage is a hell of a drug.

Anonymous Ivan Throne September 07, 2017 2:37 PM  

My $.02 for consideration...

I strongly support Gab and have found Andrew Torba to be very gracious in personal communication, as well as bearer of balls notable for their brass content. The development of Gab was a critical shot fired for AltTech in the overall cultural war.

That said, this is indeed a war.

It is a bitter war, and scorched earth is the expectation.

Do not lose sight of this.

Would the Left dump you murdered and naked into pits? With your children? And erase Western civilization from the world?

You know the answer.

How trivial and tawdry is a mere website by comparison?

Gab and Andrew will need to refocus on the fact of bitter, unstinting and unrelenting war.

A free speech platform is crucial. It is a good thing, worthy, and should be achieved well.

But survival is the First Law.

Then see Rule 3 of the 16 Points.

Then see Rule 12.

Win or die.

Regards,

Ivan

Blogger DonReynolds September 07, 2017 2:48 PM  

No one seems to make any distinction between private speech and public speech. That seems to be the part that has blurred, either deliberately or by the nature of the beast.

I want my private conversations to remain private and I do not want eavesdroppers to overhear what is being said.

We believed for years that email was like any other mail...private communication, but events have shown that email is by no means confidential or private or protected. It may be a fact of modern life that there is no private speech, that cannot be recorded and replayed, or stored by surveillance and re-used as documentary evidence later. Private speech may be a thing of the past.

Rather than treat the internet like a giant blackboard and hand everyone a piece of chalk to scribble and draw, I had much rather that services like Twitter and Gab be more like email and less like classified advertising.

There needs to be a Forum in the commons but there also needs to be some element about that Forum that improves the content. I had much rather see a Forum that is more like a Poetry Contest than the prospect of grading a huge stack of sixth grade homework. Maybe we should be in anyways selective about exactly which public speech is splashed in the public. Perhaps when a comment has more than 20 upvotes, it is more visible or prominent or moved up the search stack. We simply cannot read everything that is written by everybody.

Blogger DonReynolds September 07, 2017 3:04 PM  

@107 "I do not know where certain individuals got the idea that Free Speech in any form included the right of anonymity. It does not.

Tell "Publius" and "Federal Farmer" and a host of other anonymous & pseudoanonymous writers in history."

Most certainly, there have been individuals who wrote anonymously or used a fake name or no name at all, but Free Speech does not imply that they have a right to remain anonymous. If they can hide and not be found, that is one thing, but to claim a right to be unknown....there is no such right.

"Say whatever you feel you need to say, but expect to personally OWN it. This is especially true on the internet.

Prudent advice. But some will choose to ignore it."

Some choose to ignore highway signs too.

"Say, was it really illegal to play a song on the radio with the word "horse" in 1969? How about 1971? Asking for a Boomer friend."

I did not work in radio at the time, so I have no way of documenting whether it began in a particular year, but it was while I was still in high school. It may not have been a public law but simply a regulation through the FCC to shut down "illegal drug speech" in radio. There were drug-related words that were prohibited and the one I recall most was "horse", because of the street association with the drug heroin. It did not last long and the whole idea of stopping illegal drugs by banning certain words from radio (and music) was probably tossed by a Federal judge. It was not something that impacted me personally, so I did not keep up with the genesis.

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Deplorable Cents September 07, 2017 3:26 PM  

@111 Don Reynolds
No one seems to make any distinction between private speech and public speech.

Did you even bother to read the original posting? Or the title?

We believed for years that email was like any other mail...private communication,

Who's "we"? Retarded people? Grandmas using their 286 clone running Windows 3.1 with a free AOL disc?

Dude, a sysadmin friend just retired from .edu world, back at the end of the Cold War he had to tell students "no private email exists" but that was like 30 years ago. Where have you been?

Geeze. Get some Ginko. Ok?

Blogger VD September 07, 2017 3:29 PM  

You didn't sue the SF/F writers though that was more libelous and there were measurable damages.

I couldn't. The lawyers determined I was never expelled. I am still a Life Member of SFWA.

When does an insult become libel?

When a court decides it is. Courts have consistently decided that calling someone "a pedophile" on social media is libelous.

Have you libeled Scalzi by calling him McRapey?. If you posted "John Scalzi is a rapist" linking to his "I'm a rapist" post on Gab, should it be taken down for libel?

No. No. It is not libel to directly quote someone. That's why you should never make sarcastic statements about yourself.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents September 07, 2017 3:35 PM  

Don Reynolds
There were drug-related words that were prohibited and the one I recall most was "horse", because of the street association with the drug heroin.

Dude, does your DuckDuckGo not work anymore? Can't do a search for "horses" and "popular tunes" and "1970's"?

A couple of hits from 1971 that did well on the charts:

https://infogalactic.com/info/Wild_Horses_(The_Rolling_Stones_song)

https://infogalactic.com/info/A_Horse_with_No_Name

Never mind the real world. A Boomertard remembers something and that's that. Geeze.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash September 07, 2017 3:44 PM  

DonReynolds wrote:My personal rule is very simple.
It's nice that your ideas and opinions are very conventional and thoroughly unobjectionable. Not everybody fits in that category.

Blogger Matthew Funk September 07, 2017 3:58 PM  

A "no sock account" policy, which Torba has, is going to go a long way in helping ambiance.

Blogger Feather Blade September 07, 2017 4:02 PM  

DonReynolds wrote:We believed for years that email was like any other mail...private communication, but events have shown that email is by no means confidential or private or protected.

Sending an email is like sending a postcard: anyone who handles it can read what's written.

Encrypting your email is like putting an envelope on your letter: only the one who opens it can see the contents.

Blogger newbietrader September 07, 2017 4:12 PM  

so vox wants gab to ban people who call him names? but he can call others names. so he's against free speech he disagrees with, but vox isn;t a leftist

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener September 07, 2017 4:47 PM  

Those anons who called you a pedophile are unlikely to be sitting on piles of cash. Can't most judgments be discharged in bankruptcy in the US? In all likelihood the trouble and expense of a lawsuit would only serve to send a message, and it would force Gab to address the issue of defamatory speech sooner rather than later.

Blogger VD September 07, 2017 5:14 PM  

In all likelihood the trouble and expense of a lawsuit would only serve to send a message

You don't say.

Blogger Todd Brown September 07, 2017 5:30 PM  

Proving libel is next to impossible if you are a public figure. VD is making a fool of himself, and his followers. All of this because like 2 people had Nazi flags at a rally? I haven't heard one thing from any of you faggots about Chris Cantwell being held without bond for a clear case of self defense. If you go with the "but he deserves it because he says the J word" then clearly you have no actual principles. Fucking cult of Vox Day is getting old as fuck.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener September 07, 2017 5:37 PM  

@122 It's not that what happened to Chris Cantwell isn't wrong, it's just that we're not surprised that people who murder women and children would wrongfully imprison a guy. And he was a freaking moron for letting his whole crew be filmed by Vice so that really dampens the sympathy factor.

Anonymous WaterBoy September 07, 2017 6:21 PM  

DonReynolds @112: "There were drug-related words that were prohibited and the one I recall most was "horse", because of the street association with the drug heroin."

Not prohibited by FedGov. As already noted, A Horse With No Name was a #1 hit in 1972; it doesn't get that way without regular radio play. Additionally, one wonders why FedGov would ban the word "horse", yet allow songs like One Toke Over The Line (Brewer & Shipley, 1970), which is a clear reference to marijuana. Or the entire Cheech & Chong repertoire, for that matter.

America's hit was banned from certain individual radio stations due to the perceived drug association, however, as noted in the box set release notes. But radio stations are always free to not play what they consider objectionable content.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash September 07, 2017 6:42 PM  

There was no "ban". The FCC notified station owners that they would be held to account at their license renewal for whether they had "reviewed" all of the songs they played for drug content. That was and is an unrealistic standard. Depending on format, radio stations may acquire 1000 or more songs per week. So rather than actually ban, FCC threatened each station owner with loss of license based on avague, unverifiable and intentionally unstated standard. The effect, both intended and actual, was panicked self-censorship.

Brewer and Shipley were irrefutably harmed when most stations stopped playing One Toke Over The Line. The song was on track to go platinum.After March 1970, only so-called progressive and campus radio stations played it.

Blogger Dr. Stephen J. Krune III September 07, 2017 6:53 PM  

VD wrote:If Gab (and alt-tech in general) starts deleting trolls and acting like reverse SJWs then you can stick a fork in the whole alt-tech idea.

That's ridiculous. People don't want Alt-Tech so they can be harassed by trolls. They want to be allowed to engage in normal speech without being harassed for it.


Since there's no objective standard for what a "troll" is (they hypersensitive think it's anyone who insults them) or for what "normal speech" is (you appear to believe normal speech must be drained of humor, judging by your output), this is a completely pointless declaration. I'm afraid your basic mentality is far too nerdy, perhaps because you've spent your life marinading in nerdthink, as the comments here illustrate.

Anonymous Jesse James September 07, 2017 7:02 PM  

Vox, I recall that you used to openly brag about calling people pedophiles. When you were a guest on the Daily Shoah, you were presenting the tactic as if it was a master rhetorical move

What's the difference?

Anonymous WaterBoy September 07, 2017 7:07 PM  

Snidely Whiplash @125: "After March 1970, only so-called progressive and campus radio stations played it."

And the Lawrence Welk show.

Good, wholesome, family gospel song that it is....

Anonymous Athenian September 07, 2017 7:11 PM  

Plato, Laws, Book X:

"And to those who disobey, let the law about impiety be as follows:-If a man is guilty of any impiety in word or deed, any one who happens to present shall give information to the magistrates, in aid of the law; and let the magistrates who. first receive the information bring him before the appointed court according to the law; and if a magistrate, after receiving information, refuses to act, he shall be tried for impiety at the instance of any one who is willing to vindicate the laws; and if any one be cast, the court shall estimate the punishment of each act of impiety; and let all such criminals be imprisoned. There shall be three prisons in the state: the first of them is to be the common prison in the neighbourhood of the agora for the safe-keeping of the generality of offenders; another is to be in the neighbourhood of the nocturnal council, and is to be called the "House of Reformation"; another, to be situated in some wild and desolate region in the centre of the country, shall be called by some name expressive of retribution."

Blogger Snidely Whiplash September 07, 2017 7:20 PM  

WaterBoy wrote:And the Lawrence Welk show.
Good, wholesome, family gospel song that it is....

OMG I CAN'T STOP LAUGHING
If I suffocate it's your fault.

Blogger valiance. September 07, 2017 7:59 PM  

@68 thanks for the useful links

Anonymous Soylent Powered Bugman September 07, 2017 8:27 PM  

@77

Marsh v Alabama established that when private property rights (on property open to the public) conflict with free speech rights, the latter take precedence.

A+ spot on. And likewise with the rest of your comment.

Blogger DJ | AMDG September 07, 2017 8:40 PM  

https://infogalactic.com/info/Marsh_v._Alabama

Not to be devil's advocate but I'm not sure your interpretation of that case is entirely applicable when it come to online private/public spaces.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey September 07, 2017 10:39 PM  

The fourth type of free speech, of course, is lolcowism.

Blogger Apex_Predator September 07, 2017 10:44 PM  

@126

You nailed it brah. I lurked here a long while but only recently decided to comment on some odd things I witnessed.

What I have seen during my long lurk mode is this descent into echo chamber that seems to be getting worse and worse to the point it concerns me. I'd hate to see VD slip into self-parody but when you have "the converted" praising your every move no matter how bone-headed this is easy and common.

Anytime we get into ultra subjective ideas like "normal conversation", I immediately tune out. If you want to be a public figure and a controversial one at that, the slings and arrows are going to be pointed at you all day.

Adapt or die. Trying to fundamentally warp a nascent platform that may be the closest thing to "Platonic speech" (don't like the phrase, get the idea) is a fool's errand.

Someone with a less fragile ego would not even be phased by this situation.

I spend most of my time at Chateau Heartiste and VD has been taking way more fire there lately for this type of thing. That on the other hand, I'm not cool with. Circular fire is a -really- bad idea if it can be avoided for "us" because we got enough heat coming in externally. But when things become so skewed that anyone with functional vision who isn't a myopic drum-beater can see it clearly, then you need to help the course correction, IMHO.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash September 08, 2017 1:05 AM  

Alpha pedo is sore disappoint in us. We are so much less than he, expeciully Vox.

Anonymous Icicle September 08, 2017 3:43 AM  

Since there's no objective standard for what a "troll" is (they hypersensitive think it's anyone who insults them)

lol pleasureman

Anonymous Anonymous September 09, 2017 12:47 PM  

No, people want free speech so we don't have to worry about stupid niggers like you banning everyone because they hurt your feelings.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts