Free speech

I used to be a contributor to and occasional editor on Wikipedia. But wokeism sickened the service early on, making it no longer reliable or valuable from my perspective.

I have had a love-hate relationship with Gab from its beginning. I admire Andrew Torba’s commitment to maintaining an open forum (as long as laws are not broken), regardless of how odious some topics may be to others.

On the positive side, to my knowledge, Gab is the only social media platform that has never self-censored nor succumbed to pressure and threats from any entity seeking to impose censorship for any reason.

On the negative side, because of its integrity, it allows a lot of content that is — again in my opinion only — neither credible nor valuable. This is content that I have to wade through despite being very careful about whom I follow.

All in all, Gab is one of only two social media that I still use. (I must confess that I still use Facebook because there are people with whom I want to keep in touch who reside there. I’m working on a strategy to rid myself of the hideous Zuck monster, but it’s proving hard for me to do.)

I was alerted to Wikipedia’s “description” of Gab and found it a remarkable example of pretzel logic. It manages in one paragraph to dismiss Gab’s assertion of free speech by listing examples of what is clearly as positive an attitude toward free speech as you can expect. Wikipedia leads off its attack as follows:

Gab is an American alt-tech microblogging and social networking service known for its far-right userbase.[2][3][4][5] Widely described as a haven for neo-Nazis, racists, white supremacists, white nationalists, antisemites, the alt-right, supporters of Donald Trump, conservatives, right-libertarians, and believers in conspiracy theories such as QAnon,[6][7] Gab has attracted users and groups who have been banned from other social media platforms and users seeking alternatives to mainstream social media platforms.[8][9][10] Founded in 2016 and launched publicly in May 2017,[3][11] Gab claims to promote free speech, individual liberty, the “free flow of information online”, and Christian values.[12][13][14][15] Researchers and journalists have characterized these assertions as an obfuscation of its extremist ecosystem.[13][16] Antisemitism is prominent in the site’s content and the company itself has engaged in antisemitic commentary. Gab CEO Andrew Torba has promoted the white genocide conspiracy theory.[13][14][15][17] Gab is based in Pennsylvania.[18]

Researchers note that Gab has been “repeatedly linked to radicalization leading to real-world violent events”.

Wikipedia

As for the notion that “researchers” have allegedly noted, I’d have to see proof before condemning it. Gab has been involved in several cases where entities have attempted to throttle Gab by requesting that they remove controversial positions. Gab has repeatedly refused, stating that as long as it does not stray into criminal intent, it remains in the domain of free speech.

I continue to support Gab, even though I find little value to me in its content. I continue to support it because I think that their commitment to free speech deserves support, over and above its utilitarian value.

Prove me wrong.