Being the subject of a nation in which freedom of speech is an increasingly rare commodity, both online and offline, I’m pleased that the free speech social media site is back in operation. As a Briton, I know I can go on Gab and speak my mind about issues such as Islam, transgenderism, politics, culture, religion or what have you, without the risk that Gab staff will act as police informers and bring about my arrest. I can also have confidence that Gab will not ban users merely because someone has been ‘offended’ by another’s words. Coming from a country where people are prosecuted and sometimes gaoled for mere jokes, I respect freedom of speech and, I hope, use that freedom wisely.
This mode of operation by Gab is in very stark contrast to sites like Twitter, which seem all too willing to police users’ speech in ways that go beyond measures which many of us would find acceptable, such as acting against those who make credible and immediate threats or who use the platform for doxing. I’m sure many people will know by now that Gab was shut down following the revelation that the Pittsburgh mass murderer was a user of that site and had used it to gob off about ‘evil Jews’ very shortly before his violent acts. I still don’t believe that Gab was to blame for this murderer, only this savage individual is to blame for what he did. I think he is the sort of person who would have murdered Jewish people even in pre-internet days, due to his dodgy predilections. But I can’t help wondering if maybe, just maybe, because of his particular rhetoric, whether he should and could have been noticed by Gab management earlier and something done about him? Credible threats to murder are not covered by freedom of speech policies, even in America, the land of free speech, liberality and the First Amendment. Shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre where there is no fire has for decades been unacceptable in US law. Even though I’m a bit of a free speech fundamentalist, there are still things, like threatening murder,which I believe should lie outside free speech provisions.
I still believe that Gab was treated somewhat unfairly when compared with other social media platforms. Sites like Twitter and Facebook also contain more than their fair share of nutcases, but in the case of Twitter and Facebook they contain violent nutcases of the Left rather than of the Right. However when it comes to Gab, I have to admit that Gab does have a bit of a problem with neo-Nazi totalitarians and nutcases. It is a problem that the management of Gab may have to deal with much more robustly in the future.
My own Gab experience, as with all social media users, differs a lot from other people’s experiences, with self-curating platforms like Gab I find it easy to exclude from my feed the sort of nutters that I do not wish to be associated with in any way. But, I have noticed that hard core neo-Nazi totalitarians make up approximately 10% of Gab users, at least among those who interact or try to interact with me. I also estimate that there are about another 10% who are what I would call ‘fellow travellers’, for example those who push discredited ‘Rothschild’ or ‘Zog’ conspiracy theories. Others, such as the American Jewish conservative Pauli @MadJewessWoman have, according to a blogpost over at Freezoxee, had a remarkably different and a much more challenging experience on Gab than mine. She has had to put up with death threats, remarks that she is ‘oven ready’ and much more coming her way. That is all behaviour which I have no hesitation in condemning.
Pauli’s experience is that the majority of Gab users are Jew-hating fraggles, but that has not been my experience, but that may be because I spend most of my time on Gab talking to Britons, there may be many more neo-Nazi loons who I have yet had the displeasure to encounter. I also don’t seek out arguments with the mentally challenged neo-Nazis, although I will take them on if they turn up, as have many others of the more sensible Gab users. As I said earlier, everyone’s experience of social media platforms is different and I’ve managed to avoid the very worst of the sort of experience that Pauli and her associates have had, but I feel that maybe more could have been done to stop the worst of the worst from ruining what is otherwise a very good platform
What is bothering me is that although Gab has published policies on things like threats of murder, doxing and child porn, according to Pauli these policies were not enforced by Gab management. This is something that I believe needs to change. Even under the most liberal reading of freedom of speech, making credible murder threats or threats of violence is unacceptable and if Pauli’s experience is at all representative of the experiences of others, then Gab needs to act.
My own view is that the best way to counter what could be termed hateful speech is more free speech from those who wish to challenge that speech or those particular opinions which could be reasonably termed hateful. If we want to slay the myth that the Holocaust didn’t happen or that there is a sinister conspiracy of Jews to control the world or any of the other types of conspiracy theory guff that exists out there on the internet, then we should challenge those who hold such views with facts. This was what Pauli tried to do but her opponents were not misguided or merely fellow travellers of neo-Nazism, they were the real deal,the true believers who could not be persuaded by any solid facts. They were quite plainly totalitarians, whom no amount of evidence could convince that a big Jew didn’t do it.
Totalitarians, whether they be of the Right, of the Left or religious totalitarians, do not respect freedom of speech, or democracy or truth; they are what they are. The big question for me is how do we deal with the sort of totalitarians who if they had power would not only shut down freedom of speech but who would also engage in murder? Do we banish them and maybe let them fester and worsen or do we challenge them and pour the disinfectant of sunlight on them? My own preferred option would be that they should be allowed as much speech as is legitimate to give them, in effect let them hang themselves on their own ropes. But they should be challenged where possible and if that is not feasible, then they should be muted, blocked or as a last resort removed by the site in question, especially when credible threats of murder or violence are involved.
Despite being a great fan of Gab, since I can speak there and even tell jokes without fear of arrest for doing so, I have to admit that it is not perfect and the activities of neo-Nazi totalitarians does tarnish Gab for me somewhat. This concern about totalitarians is not, I need to say, just something that only affects Gab, as there are also a lot of Leftist totalitarians, including violent ones, on platforms such as Twitter and Facebook for example. What bothers me is that such Leftist totalitarians seem to be indulged and tolerated by the management of these sites, almost as much as Rightist totalitarians are tolerated on Gab.
I think that at the end of the day Gab is going to have to enforce its own rules and its own terms and conditions, especially over the issue of death threats, threats of violence and doxing of the sort that Pauli highlighted in her Freezoxee post. If they do not do that, then the lunatics will eventually take over the asylum. I want to see a Gab where there is a diversity of opinion, with users from the Left and the Right, religious and secular, traditionalist and non-traditionalist, gay and straight. This would be a very healthy environment, which would reduce the risk of Gab becoming a far right echo chamber. Now that Gab has been reinstated to the internet, due to the publicity that Gab was given in the news media following the Pittsburgh massacre, I’m delighted to see that there are a number of new users who are not complete fraggles. These users seem to be coming from the traditional Left as well as Libertarians and those who call themselves Liberal. This is good, this is helpful for debate and long may this continue. Gab seems to have benefited from a sort of Streisand Effect, because of the adverse publicity over the Pittsburgh murderer being a user of Gab.
To be fair to Gab with regards to the issues of threats and doxing that Pauli brought up in her blogpost, it needs to be said that Gab is managed by a very small team. There are not masses of staff tasked to deal with dodgy posts, which may be the case with other platforms and this may have contributed to the situation where things that should have been dealt with were not being handled properly.
I think that if Gab is to be taken seriously as a free speech site, then it has to deal with its violent totalitarians and its fraggles and this is something that the users of Gab can help with a great deal. By all means argue with and correct the fellow travellers of neo-Nazism and Communism, you may change minds and lives that way, but the ‘true believers’ are nigh on impossible to convert and should be muted. Let them stay in their digital basements, wanking off over pictures of Adolf if they want but let us normal people turn our backs on them. Also, as threats of violence and doxing are against Gab’s terms of service, I would strongly counsel that Gab users report these to Gab management in the hope that they will be sorted out. I’m not of course suggesting that people act like the Twitter-Left and report everything they find offensive, but genuine, credible threats of violence along with doxing should be referred up to management. We all want to be able to speak freely and we should not let the violent totalitarians stop us from doing so. We should not let Gab become a place dominated by totalitarians, since these totalitarians would be quite willing to take away the freedom of speech which they exploit and which we also enjoy, in order to get their views over.
I truly want Gab, along with other alternative social media, to survive and thrive and for speech to be as free as possible. I want this because I believe that the free and open exchange of ideas is the way that society grows and progresses. However, for Gab to grow and thrive, it may have to compromise somewhat on its fundamentalism regarding freedom of speech and act against the violent totalitarians, whether they be Left, Right or religious, who have never been and never will be friends of free speech.
