
Gab will become a Mastodon fork - betaveros
https://gab.com/gab/posts/VnZRendFcDM1alBhNm9QeWV4d0xidz09
======
jtr1
Gab has certainly carved out a niche for some of the worst speech on the
internet, including at the very least the announcement of terrorist activity
(see Tree of Life, New Zealand massacres) if not the wholesale coordination of
it. I don't think we can have a serious discussion about free speech without
acknowledging that members of these groups have moved along a path from speech
to actions that include mass murder.

On the other hand if we're serious about free speech absolutism, this is
probably the best case scenario. Federated Mastadon instances should have the
option of blocking harassment from Gab users. Allow them to have their free
speech, but the rest of online society should have the option to shun them - a
real-world dynamic that is not well reflected on platforms like twitter
_because_ of centralization. Rather than hopelessly petitioning Jack to ban
the nazis, users + communities should be empowered to do it themselves.

~~~
DuskStar
When you found a town that is extremely vocal in its ban on witch burning, it
really shouldn't be a surprise to have it filled with witches. But that
doesn't mean that witch burnings aren't a bad thing, or that towns with such a
ban shouldn't exist.

------
gfodor
Those focused on Gab's audience should realize this kind of attempt is the
best hope for a global migration off of twitter to a decentralized service.
(Which to me, would be a good thing.)

If it was ever going to happen at this point, it would probably be by venture
backed company addressing an alienated audience from the platform who is
incentivized enough to switch platforms, building a good UX around a
decentralized alternative, and then hoping you can get enough critical mass
for network effects to kick in. In the limit, the alt-right focus of Gab will
eventually dilute away if the edges of the network get built up and Gab is
just another (big) node in the network -- nascent services have an audience
focus to get traction that self-evidently goes away as they reach global
scale. You don't have to like their choice of initial audience, but this
strategic execution certainly seems one worth keeping an eye on, not just to
see if the migration starts to happen at a larger scale but also because if
they validate the strategy other companies can target similar niche audiences.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Most of the Mastodon network will ban Gab immediately (and the founder of Gab
acknowledges as much in the comments of the article), community dilution is
very unlikely. But they will get to share federation with a variety of other
alt-right and free speech zone Mastodon servers which have been banned by the
larger fediverse community.

~~~
gfodor
As it should be -- by community dilution I was referring more to mind share
around Mastodon and also the likelihood that Gab's community would soften its
alt-right focus if it's able to get traction with a wider audience that may
lean right but is not hard right.

I think this kind of federation for under-served audiences, combined with good
productization, is a necessary step towards a future where fan-out
'microblogging' has the same place in our society as email. To me, it was
quite a sight to see Congress speaking to half a dozen white men about how to
decide what words people can say to each other over the Internet -- the
absence of a representative for regulating "email speech" made it clear the
importance of decentralizing these services.

~~~
not_a_cop75
It's hard to really claim Gab is alt-right when the truth is really more that
it's alt anything. Remember the good old days of usenet, where alt represented
all the usenet "channels" that basically didn't give a damn and weren't
sponsored by anyone in particular? Sure you had your flame wars, but back then
no one got banned for it. The advantage of services like Twitter is that
whatever agenda Twitter wants to control, they control. The ability to control
the narrative is certainly a profitable one. What was the quote? When the
service is free, you're the product. Think on that.

~~~
jakelazaroff
Is it just a coincidence, then, that every time I refreshed this article,
literally every single user listed under "who to follow" was alt-right, a
white supremacist or a Nazi?

Or that the company itself has repeatedly made anti-Semitic statements?

Or that there are photographs of the founder making white supremacist hand
signs?

------
daveid
Gab solicited $5M [1] in investments just to use open source software that
anyone can use for free. Wonder how those investors feel about it.

[1]: [https://thinkprogress.org/social-network-that-caters-to-
whit...](https://thinkprogress.org/social-network-that-caters-to-white-
nationalists-raises-5-million-in-funding-9fa19fe2aaf1/)

~~~
ryanmarsh
In spite of the fact that Gab is a known cess pool (cis pool?), I funded it
because we need more alternatives to the big social networks. I would have
funded Tor and 4chan had I the opportunity many years ago.

Not too long ago this was a classical liberal position. Today free speech is
passé. Guess I'm just old fashioned.

I'm happy to see that Gab is switching to Mastodon. I think it will increase
the survivability of the platform. They've struggled under the engineering
challenges of scaling a social network. Mastodon fans should be happy that
this _may_ mean an influx of hosts and developers.

~~~
UncleMeat
Why are free speech absolutists only supporting fascists?

Where are the people advocating for the destruction of intellectual property
rights, for widespread declassification of state communications, for suffrage
rights for felons, and for unionization and striking rights? I don't exactly
see the gab users advocating for laws permitting sympathetic striking.

~~~
newfriend
Because those opinions are not being banned by existing social media
platforms. Whereas so-called "fascists" (who are not really fascists) are.

No one is banning those opinions on gab, there is simply no point in them
being there because they are free to post those opinions on twitter (and
others) with impunity.

~~~
tw04
Are you hoping no one here has visited gab, or have you never visited gab?
Because if you're claiming that site isn't full of literal fascists, it can
only be one of the two.

------
javagram
> “Moving to the ActivityPub protocol as our base allows us to get into mobile
> App Stores without even having to submit and get approval of our own apps,
> whether Apple and Google like it or not.“

The perils (or benefits?) of open protocols.

Existing mastodon/pleroma clients will be able to connect to Gab by adding a
server setting.

Now I wonder if mastodon client app developers will start filtering the
allowed servers users can put in...

~~~
phoe-krk
> Now I wonder if mastodon client app developers will start filtering the
> allowed servers users can put in...

This is not the duty of client applications. Banning instances is the duty of
the operators of individual instances, and the instance(s) on which you have
your account(s) are the instance(s) whose blocking policy affects you. This is
a feature.

Most sane instances on the Fediverse already ban extremist and alt-right
content, and Gab will be no different in that case - just another entry on the
blacklist, next to
[https://freespeechextremist.com/](https://freespeechextremist.com/) and
[https://rapefeminists.network](https://rapefeminists.network) and other
instances who shamelessly abuse the right to free speech.

~~~
r3bl
> This is not the duty of client applications.

It might become their duty. Since Gab's apps are banned, and those apps would
be used to access Gab's servers, I could see Apple/Google blocking Mastodon
apps as well.

App creators might be forced to ban Gab in order to avoid getting banned from
the app stores.

~~~
tlrobinson
That would be a fairly absurd position for the app stores to take, given that
the exact same argument could be made about web browsers.

I don’t think we should be advocating for app stores to exert any more control
over generic client software than they already have.

------
ocdtrekkie
Oh, the Mastodon community is going to be _ticked_ about this... Purism said
Librem One's server wasn't going to police speech, and they were upset about
it. Gab is a whole different level.

I think ActivityPub has huge potential to be a way for communities of
disparate views and perspectives to exist out there, and two distinct and very
opposing groups have grasped onto it: People who want space spaces who don't
think mainstream platforms moderate enough, and the alt-right and free speech
crowd.

In the long run, I think you'll see a lot of ActivityPub servers, but two
distinct federations, with very few links between them: One radically liberal
and one radically conservative.

~~~
kristianc
> People who want space spaces who don't think mainstream platforms moderate
> enough, and the alt-right and free speech crowd.

I've never really understood the 'safe spaces' line of argument. I'm a 30 year
old white male, and whenever I log onto YouTube I see nothing but
recommendations trying to force me down the alt-right rabbit hole.

Sure, Twitter has booted off a few high profile people on the alt right but I
don't think I've ever seen anyone argue that the debate on Twitter isn't
pretty robust.

Where's the censorship? And how attractive is a community of people only for
people who have been kicked off larger platforms?

~~~
cannonedhamster
The persecution complex among predominantly white males right now is high
because there's a significant social change occurring that is causing those
who've been disadvantaged the same privileges that white males have enjoyed
alone for much of recent human history. It's a natural human reaction to care
more about loss than to see the potential upside. We've also seen this
numerous times before. The rise of Nazism was the natural response to the
harsh restrictions of WW1 which is why the Marshall plans included Germany in
the rebuilding opportunities.

Many of those on the right address looking for power and utilize this gut
reactionary response by those who feel disenfranchised for their own purposes.
It's why fighting against a populist like President Trump with facts doesn't
work. If reality don't fit the narrative, make a different reality. It's a
very effective propaganda technique that usually requires an outside force to
break. The US did something similar with the fight against communism and
really had a hard time redefining Americanism once the Soviet Union collapsed.
That's why the so called war on terror will never end. In order for America to
be the good guys there needs to be bad people too. So in order for the alt-
right to be the victim they either find villains on the left or they make them
up. AOC is a perfect example of a toothless villain. She's a junior
congresswomen with no real power, but she's constantly villainized far beyond
the risk she poses to anyone on the right. Physically though she embodies the
fears of white guys being replaced from their positions of power.

~~~
0815test
And yet, many SJW's and Berniebros are white dudes... Self-hating, perhaps? Or
maybe the whole narrative that "the right is powerful because White guys are
furious about having to give up their inherent power!" just doesn't stand up
to even the most cursory scrutiny. It's blatant propaganda; fake news meant to
demonize and discredit conservative thought, even to make it "radioactive" in
the eyes of the (largely bandwagoning) general public. And these people have
the gall to say that _their political opponents_ are tantamount to Nazis? Sad
and despicable!

~~~
cannonedhamster
I mean I'm not saying they're evil, it's just how history works. Those in
power object to losing said power.

Edit: Nor was I trying to make the claim that this is limited to any political
party. It's a tool commonly used in populism.

------
kgraves
As much as I hate the bad parts of Gab, I am glad they are standing up to
their principles of being a truly free speech social network.

The other social networks just love to censor everybody they disagree with,
even a particular orange looking website.

I am also excited and glad they are utilising open source software as well.
(This was bound to happen sooner or later) This can make activitypub &
decentralised networks mainstream.

~~~
jtr1
I don't share any such appreciation for Gab. IMO, "free speech" in this case
was a thinly veiled excuse for white supremacism, which has plenty of other
homes on the internet. The developers of Gab chose to devote substantial
portions of their lives to creating a platform for people who promote ethnic
cleansing and the suppression of minorities. I don't think it's possible to do
that without your eyes wide open, and I think that makes it a profoundly evil
project.

~~~
kgraves
> ..."free speech" in this case is a thin wrapper over white supremacism,

Even though this is your opinion I find this statement extremely ridiculous.

I don't support or agree with their views, but free speech grants them the
right to say it and I will defend that right (which includes everyone).

The great thing is that you don't have to hear it, just block them if you
don't like it.

~~~
jtr1
Yes, yes, we're all familiar with the Patrick Henry quote. If my statement is
so ridiculous, then point out why instead of making bald assertions.

I made no argument about the value of free speech. I am arguing that, given
the fairly obvious clientele, it is reasonable to assume that principled
fealty to free speech was not the driving motivation in Gab's creation. I
don't think it's ridiculous to point to the specific content that makes up the
majority of Gab and say you would have to be extraordinarily obtuse not to
realize what and for whom you were building a social network.

~~~
kgraves
> I am asserting that, given the fairly obvious clientele, it is reasonable to
> assume that principled fealty to free speech was not the driving motivation
> in Gab's creation.

Well, I believe that free speech was the reason for Gab's creation, they were
getting censored from other social platforms so they built their own. It just
so as happens that over time they have attracted vile users to the platform
who have way more unpopular views.

So what are you really trying to say here?

~~~
jtr1
> ...they were getting censored from other social platforms so they built
> their own. It just so as happens that over time they have attracted vile
> users to the platform who have way more unpopular views.

My point is that there is not much daylight between the former and the latter.
Gab was not created in a vacuum by neutral arbiters of free speech.

------
amiga-workbench
I tried to find some remotely interesting content on that site, all I found
was boomer political rambling and bile.

If they do this, I'll be making sure I blacklist their instances. While there
are plenty of free-speech oriented or even right wing mastodon instances, the
signal to noise ratio on these is pretty good and there is actually content
worth engaging with.

~~~
rmtech
> there are plenty of free-speech oriented or even right wing mastodon
> instances, the signal to noise ratio on these is pretty good and there is
> actually content worth engaging with.

any recommendations?

~~~
amiga-workbench
I see a lot of people in my feed from bsd.moe and liberdon.com, I'm on
layer8.space at the moment but am considering hosting an instance just for
myself.

I feel like a burden being on someone else's server, using their bandwidth.

~~~
rmtech
What's the best way to use that kind of thing? Is there an app that's
recommended?

~~~
amiga-workbench
I use Tusky on Android and the web UI for everything else.

------
Millennium
Good. This will make an excellent test of the ability of Mastodon servers and
users to ostracize malicious actors, and a solid driver for new features in
this area of development.

------
0815test
Regardless of how you feel about the Gab folks in particular, this is _great_
news that _clearly_ shows the power of the federated web in enabling,
empowering and preserving diverse audiences.

~~~
krapp
Maybe now they'll stop concern-trolling about the inevitable slippery slope
into an Orwellian fascist nightmare the world will descend into every time a
site bans them. They have their own playground where they can be as racist and
edgy as they want.

Obligatory xkcd: [https://xkcd.com/1357/](https://xkcd.com/1357/)

~~~
rchaud
That won't happen because the constant alarmism about censorship is part of
the appeal. "Your rights are being violated by the Hollywood/feminists/liberal
elites! Send me money so I can tell you how to combat this scourge with Logic
& Reason (TM)"

People like J Peterson and Sargon could deal with being deplatformed in the
way they preach to their disciples, but instead they whine about it while
shaking their e-collection boxes.

~~~
balaksakrionon
I suspect the type of dismisiveness you show towards large swaths of the
populace's opinions contributes to the success of folks like JBP and Sargon

~~~
rchaud
I suspect it does too, but probably for different reasons.

Criticism of "thought leaders" like these guys only strengthens the hold they
have among the legions of young people who follow their words like gospel.

Any criticism of these figures for their platitude-heavy content and huckster-
style marketing must also be a criticism of their followers as individuals,
because they have bought into that mindset wholesale.

~~~
antepodius
JBP, at least, generally seems to come off better than the people criticising
him.

And young people have rebellious tendencies, they form countercultures. The
current world culture tilts to left-progressivism, so there's a right-ish
counterculture.

~~~
Bakary
The problem is that many look at JBP interacting with clickbait and unethical
journalists and conclude that he must be a great and honest thinker in
comparison. Actual academics rarely engage with him, and not because they are
afraid to or malicious but because he hasn't published much that can even be
engaged with outside of psychology. The exception is Žižek, and we all saw how
that went for Peterson.

------
vikingcaffiene
I had heard about Gab but never visited the site before. I just spent 30
seconds perusing the trending feed. I saw the following:

1\. a video of a man being shot and killed during an armed robbery 2\. 3 anti
islam posts 3\. the usual pro trump propaganda 4\. a meme warning about the
evils of feminism urging women to get back to their "place" in the family.

Gab is a festering pile of trash. Anyone responsible for making any technical
decisions on it should be ashamed of themselves.

~~~
saagarjha
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your
right to say it.

~~~
UncleMeat
Will you defend my right to distribute IP I don't own? Or to vote if I am a
felon? Or to share state secrets? Or to defraud people or slander people?

Do you believe that if the people on gab became state leaders that they'd
protect your right to dissent?

~~~
saagarjha
There are exceptions to freedom of speech:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions;)
some of the things on your list are on this and hence do not fall under free
speech. Also, note that I don't necessarily agree with all of these exceptions
(for example, my personal opinions to your questions tends to lean towards
"yes, in many cases" regardless of their legality. In this case I would
instead be fighting for your actions to become protected under free speech).

------
travisoneill1
Most HN posts: HN users hate internet controlled and censored by governments
or corporations

This post: HN users hate it when things they don't like manage to get around
corporate and government censorship

~~~
anon12345690
lol and another big story is talking about china attacking activists and
everyones freaking out. people who want to censor are the worst.

~~~
travisoneill1
And they're such losers too. They just downvote because they can't even
present a counterargument.

------
xrjpi
>Moving to the ActivityPub protocol as our base allows us to get into mobile
App Stores without even having to submit and get approval of our own apps,
whether Apple and Google like it or not

They also had the option of creating an ActivityPub compatible API, no? But
yes I guess it's easier this way.

Having said that I wonder if they'll allow federation to happen. Most Mastodon
instances restrict and censor speech so they will probably add Gab to the
blocklist immediately but it would be cool if they could federate with other
free speech instances. But then, what would be the point of using Gab instead
of just other Mastodon instance?

~~~
coldpie
Deciding what content is allowed on your private platform is not censorship.
The platform owner is exercising their own form of speech.

~~~
dcolkitt
Incorrect.

> Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other
> information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable,
> harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient".[2][3][4] Censorship can be conducted
> by a government[5], private institutions, and corporations.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship)

~~~
cannonedhamster
I am not required to host your speech on my platform. The only free speech
protection that is guaranteed in the United States is from the government
stifling a citizen's speech and even that is fairly limited with free speech
overridden by safety and security concerns on a fairly regular basis. That a
particular platform doesn't want your speech is their right under their
ability to speak. You cannot be forced to advocate a position you do not agree
with.

~~~
dcolkitt
You're conflating the definition of the word "censorship" with the legal
protections of the First Amendment. They're too separate concepts.

------
Keverw
I first heard of Gab when big social media sites were accused of censoring
conservatives during the 2016 election. One of the idea of Gab is if you don't
like what people say you can block them and don't visit their profile...

So for example many social networks banned Alex Jones... With Gab if you don't
like what he says, you don't have to follow him... So instead of the site
itself trying to censor people, the users can censor things themselves. I
believe the only thing Gab censors is if the content itself is illegal in some
way, but other than that they support free speech giving users more choices
and freedom.

~~~
samfriedman
Sure you can block specific users, but if I don't want to see (for example)
anti-semitism how can I block that topic completely? It's not as if users tag
their posts with each brand of hate speech.

~~~
Keverw
I'm not sure if you block someone if it also hides their topics created by
them but I would assume so. I know they have a way to block words too. I guess
they call it mute users and words instead of block.

I know some people were calling this the alt tech space.

I haven't really been following it other than I remember the developer was
interviewed talking about it. Another idea instead of verification badge being
reserved for large celebrities, supposed to be more to show it's truly them.

I do think we're going down a slippery slope with all this censorship though
and a few large players in Silicon valley controlling everything. I know there
was a lot of accusations going on, that some search engines and sites were
rigged to rank Hillary higher than Trump... Even the people in the media were
saying Trump had no chance and Hillary was going to win. It's like they tried
to rig the whole thing. But even then the mainstream media is all controlled
by a few hands anyways too.

Then there are only really two main operating systems... On Mobile iOS and
Android. Desktop Mac and Windows... So seems like more choices and freedom is
a great thing, so power is spread out more instead of a few having large
amounts of influence. However I also feel like people will pick things based
on ease of use and features over being open. I like the ideas of Linux but I
find myself using MacOs when it comes to desktop operating systems.

I know people are building alternatives to Facebook and YouTube on the
blockchain (such as Steemit). Then there are even projects aiming to build
alternatives to Wikipedia as some people don't even trust them either, forget
what it's called though off the top of my head though. I know some of these
companies have a lot of control and power, and can't even provide decent
technical support.

I know Elizabeth Warren recent thing is talking about breaking up big tech,
Google and Facebook... I like a lot of what Google does though, as a geek they
are doing awesome things technically. I'm not sure if breaking them up is a
good idea or not, but I think more competition and choices would be great as
lack of tech support is a concern(and many recent HN posts on that topic
already) and ideally I wish they'd be neutral in ranking things but I know
people debate about that anyway as a whole other topic.

~~~
52-6F-62
> _some search engines and sites were rigged to rank Hillary higher than
> Trump... Even the people in the media were saying Trump had no chance and
> Hillary was going to win. It 's like they tried to rig the whole thing. But
> even then the mainstream media is all controlled by a few hands anyways
> too._

You don't know this, though. There's no possible way you can.

And from someone inside the media— it's more disparate than you seem to want
to believe.

------
loceng
From
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_(social_network)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_\(social_network\))
-

"Gab is an English-language social media website, launched publicly in 2017,
known for its mainly far-right user base.[9] The site has been described as
"extremist friendly"[10] or a "safe haven"[11] for neo-Nazis, white
supremacists, and the alt-right.[10] ... Antisemitism is a prominent part of
the site's content[24] and the platform itself has engaged in antisemitic
commentary.[13][25]" \- and so on.

I'm curious how the existing Mastodon users feel about this.

~~~
smacktoward
A nice thing about Mastodon/ActivityPub is that administrators of "instances"
(which means basically each running copy of the server software; you create a
user account with a specific Mastodon instance, rather than with Mastodon
itself) can disable federation with individual other instances, if they want
to. So if a particular instance becomes a haven for trolls or other
miscreants, you can block that entire instance and your users will no longer
have to deal anything posted from it.

So I suspect that, if Gab really does become an ActivityPub instance, many
other instances will just de-federate from them and that will be that.

~~~
loceng
Okay cool. I wonder does that mean Gab is able to use and benefit from any
apps/tools created for Mastodon instances - or would it be possible for the
owners of those apps/tools themselves to block/prevent certain instances from
benefiting? I'd hope that's the case so everyone has the ability to 'vote' for
who they are supporting.

~~~
hedora
Free Software can’t discriminate based on use case, but this was written back
before godwin’s law was repealed, so, maybe no one will care that much if
freedom zero gets tossed out?

 _sigh_

[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-
sw.html](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)

A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential
freedoms: [1]

The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).

...

~~~
loceng
We prevent bad actors from developing (if possible) or having nuclear weapons.
If they come to develop it on their own, okay then, however imagine we just
gave that technology to everyone?

Nuclear weapons have widespread and massive devastation, the potential energy
that builds up with hate is perhaps more terrifying though - as instead of
immediately killing millions, you'll have situations like Nazi Germany, and so
on - allowing bad actors to gain more and more power and more resources to
influence the world.

I don't know and am not saying whether it should be done or not, if a
developer who builds something that works with Mastodon's structure should be
allowed to build a mechanism in that prevents who they consider bad actors (or
bad parents) to having use of their tool; of course the bad actors could copy
and develop the tools themselves, however those slight or temporary advantages
do play a role in who is a victor - imagine if it was the Nazis had nuclear
weapons first.

Generally not aiding people towards their goals who you see are behaving in a
way that leads to hate and violence is a good thing, no? Helping them survive,
understand, and quell their unrest, yes - but not helping hate and violence
boil and explode.

The university Mark Zuckerberg was attending was planning to develop an online
version of what they called a physical version of The Facebook. Mark couldn't
understand why it was taking them so long and said he could get it launched
quickly; the reason it wasn't being launched quickly was the
university/committee was trying to understand the security, social, and other
implications. Mark didn't care at all about the consequences - including but
not limited to him fucking over the twin brothers who hired him to develop
ConnectU, leading them on purposefully so he could launch Facebook first.
Perhaps if everyone did care about the consequences for what they invest their
time and/or money into, then standing for good - rallying good people and
helping prop them up as best as we all can all in service to others - would
gain a leg up against bad actors, malevolence?

