Gab.ai is kill

>We will never give up on defending free speech for all people
hmm...

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-10-27 at 6.30.39 PM.png (1200x604, 148K)

But it's literally what free speech is. Being able to be retarded or edgy without any consequences. It's retarded to protect people from words anyway. People who speak publicly about their radical views will not cease to exist if you forbid them to do so

the alt-right, which for the most part is comprised of low IQ tech-ignorant retards, are going to end up adopting all the tools that tech-adept high IQ sjw retards created for political dissidents and the fireworks will be glorious

I'll bet my bottom fucking dollar that jews had some kind of hand in this.

>be pink haired blue check shitlibs
>can't argue with people you don't like
>their facts shatter your false worldview
>ban them from public platforms under the guise of "muh private bizinuss"
>they make their own platform and keep speaking their minds
>millions of people agree with what they say and support them
>oh no, can't have that! deplatform them again!
Neo-liberal communist horseshit is the most illiberbal ideology I've ever seen. It promotes and holds up weakness and illness and degenerate behaviors as righteous and good. This garbage can only be popular in an ideological vacuum, and when given literally any alternative, normal people will take it in a heartbeat.

Get fucked, commie scum. We aren't going away.

Attached: 89101.jpg (650x323, 44K)

Good, we need to deplatform all nazis spreading fake news.

>post on a mongolian postage pigeon privacy forum
>call a group of people spergs for being worried about being silenced and coerced away from their opinions
found the shill.

Can we ban all Jow Forumsdditors for good?

Attached: boomer-losers.jpg (888x768, 123K)

up

you can't tell me after a few minutes of looking on gab that most of the users arent fucking cianiggers
anglins post about gab was right

any way to create a social media platform based on torrent architecture?

free speech protects you against the government arresting you from criticising them, not for being shown the door when you're being a prick. it's like posting a bomb threat and then crying victim when the fbi hauls you away to have a chat. I don't have to listen to your bullshit, you don't have to listen to mine, and private companies don't have to host anyone's bullshit that they don't want to.

as cringy as this is im kind of glad that the boomers are trying to redpill themselves
when you look at them sperging out about q and shit it gets them motivated politically and helps them stop trusting the media

secure scuttlebutt

the owners of internet platforms run off of us infrastructure. Electric companies cannot cut your power or refuse to wire you up because you use their electricity to project swastika symbols into the sky. Telephone companies cannot drop your service for calling people to call them a nigger, because they run on public architecture, which the person in these situations helped pay for and upkeep.
Internet free speech must be absolute in the US

As soon as that cia nigger shot up those kikes I knew this shit was going to happen, fuck the free market and fuck censorship.

>Neo-liberal communist

This makes no logical sense, you retarded pseudo-fascist kantian egoist marx anarcho capitalist.

Attached: 1491111218996.png (500x534, 54K)

not much of value was lost except for getting news from the ecelebs to edgy for twitter
scared to see where and what the seigenigger wignat larpagans will go to

i think he is saying neo-liberal in the cultural sense and communist in the fiscal sense

>hurrhurr mcdonalds can't kick me out for calling someone a kike BECAUSE I BOUGHT A BURGER!!!
you're comparing commodity internet services to your literal water supply. oh, and afaik they can cut you off or refuse service even if they seldom do even if you don't pay them, at least I couldn't find any laws with a 5 minute search suggesting otherwise in my country.

Hmm, could I write one post bad enough that Jow Forums is taken off its CDN?

Friendly reminder that Joyent is owned by Samsung. Expect rectum-ravaged alt-right spergs to film themselves destroying their own phones and refrigerators in the coming days.

Attached: Trumptard tantrums.jpg (1190x1062, 238K)

The first amendment was written at a time when the most common way of expressing dissent was shouting in the public square, which would have been public property. Therefore, the only "oppressor" for your speech could be the government, hence the way the first amendment was worded.

But today, the main avenues of expressing dissent are social media platform and online forums, all of which are owned by companies, not the government, so the first amendment doesn't protect speech on those platforms.

Now consider this: if the founding fathers had known how important online communications are today, would they have prevented only the government from stifling free speech in the first amendment?

Attached: 1532613898499.jpg (1920x1080, 778K)

also, if the sole merit of your opinions is "I [think] I'm allowed to say this" then maybe you should rethink your views and presentation thereof.

you have actual autism
mcdonalds isnt a public fucking entity, i didnt pay for mcburgers to be built down the street
my analogy with the electric and telephone companies were acurate, you have to make a fucking strawman one because you know you are wrong

you don't seem to understand the point I'm making: the first amendment doesn't stop someone from asking you to leave their house if you're being a douchebag to them and wasn't designed to. free speech isn't a magical you-have-to-tolerate-my-opinions clause. you're retarded and this is why people don't want to listen to you.

It seems like you're being sarcastic, but web hosting is not even slightly difficult. It's a convenience. Pretending that you can't have a website because web hosts don't like you is like pretending that you can't lift weights because you were kicked out of the gym. Cryptocurrencies negate the need for payment processors.

>Now we need censorship resistance for websites.
If only something like that had existed for 15+ years already.

Gee, if only ISPs were regulated like public utilities. I really wish someone had thought of that. It sure is a good thing that all of you free speech advocates have prevented corporate stooges from taking control of the regulation authorities.

Attached: tor.png (306x185, 16K)

literally who?

>let me tell you what the founding fathers _actually_ meant
I thought you conservashits were in favor of constitutional textualism

Attached: download.png (600x600, 92K)

>first amendment doesn't stop someone from asking you to leave their house
that's correct, but someone's house would be private property. the question here IMO is whether or not some parts of the internet should be deemed public as the public square of long ago, because of how important the internet is today for communication.

>you're retarded and this is why people don't want to listen to you.
look, i tried to be as polite as possible when responding to your uninformed opinion in my post. you should at least attempt to do the same.

"stupid racists being mad that a company doesnt want their entire race's business"
i never said that
legal precedent with public infrastructure nigger
that analogy is fucking just fucking wrong
it would be correct if the 'house' was a city hall or- oh wait that's a public space that is built on taxpayer dollars, we'd be right

Please point me to the exact place where I identified as a ````conservashit''''. Go on, I'll wait.

it isnt a matter of the difficulty, it doesnt matter about the ISP, internet infrastructures themselves are US property

>business owners shouldn't have the right to decide what to do with their stuff
>I should be able to do whatever I want with their stuff
>also, tuition-free schools are communist

>public infrastructure
the internet isn't classed as a public utility by any definition. it's a web of private networks and if someone doesn't want you using their servers or bandwidth then tough. alt right fags get so butthurt when people treat them how they treat other people :)

i'd be perfectly willing to give you that if we didnt have to have all of the 'living document' shit we had today
no nigger freedom, no women's votes
its like we wouldnt need to argue about shit like this if everything didnt go to shit

What is funny is they censored lollicon despite being a free speech platform for everyone and used This guy's argument on getting rid of people.

If a business owner aims for their venture to become as ubiquitous and engrained in society as a utility, then I believe they should be regulated as such. It's only fair.

As for the rest of your post, please keep your strawmen to yourself, thanks.

It's not the ISPs it's Social Media platforms. If Social Media was the free speech platform and regulated like a utility it would be beneficial. Currently people are being censored.

>internet infrastructures themselves are US property
No, they aren't. I don't know of any example of Internet infrastructure that's public property.

Bryan Cantrill kicks so much ass.

Also, sexually frustrated conservashits who shoot up churches, schools, and movie theaters don't deserve a voice.

>Not allowed to post cp lite™
>Not allowed to post illegal things
Oh no, what a travesty

>68247229
Meanwhile, large corporations refusing to cover birth control as part of healthcare because of the owners' religious beliefs is fine because it's a private company

home broadband is frequently packaged with and provided by us phone companies
it falls under the us telecommunication act nigger
get bent
yes, read torbas fucking post about it
it is a legal grey area, his country is based in the us
put two and two together

>inciting violence is consequence free

>own web hosting service
you need multiple building across the world or at least two continents so the service runs properly, the numbers go over the millions if you run it like that

Utilities should be forced to treat people fairly because you can't build your own utilities. You can build your own website.

There can't be 5000 separate phone systems in the U.S. There can millions of websites. You can run a website from your garage. You can't run a phone network from your garage. Do you see the difference?

ISPs should be regulated as utilities, and they used to be. Unfortunately for everyone, that policy was recently removed. Back then the same people who are now whining about being kicked off of websites said that deregulating ISPs was a good thing because we shouldn't tell private businesses what they can and can't do with the stuff that they own.

why did they not use a p2p network of webpages with a centralized entry point that can be hosted at some country like china or north korea who don't give a shit about PC cuxks

You don't need all that shit. Just colo a few boxes at different providers and load balance. Not everyone has to be at the scale of Amazon or Google.

> the phone system is public infrastructure so YOU CAN'T PUT THE PHONE DOWN ON ME
is basically what you're saying

Letting a former Verizon exec run the FCC was such a good idea. He's so busy being smug about repealing Obama policies to notice that over half of the phone calls in the US are automated sales pitches

>website
In principle this would make sense, except that network effects in human nature make this effectively false. While there can be millions of websites, most people will flock to the few sites where their friends are. This makes the barrier-to-entry immeasurably tall for new communication platforms, because nobody would switch until their friends switch, who in turn wouldn't switch until their friends switch, etc.

"Websites", in the broadest term, are definitely not utilities, because as you suggest, anyone can stand up a web server on a cheap VPS and accept traffic. Social media platforms, however, have much much more at play than simply the technology powering them, including the user network effects that keep them in business.

My point is that social media sites like facebook, twitter (and gab, to a much lesser extent) cannot be copied simply by putting up a new website, because the USERS of those products are what give them value.

>company not letting me have phonecalls = people cannot hang up on me
yeah, that's what i said

technically dailup is
if i use dialup, twitter can't ban me for saying obama is a nigger
checkmate liberal

>just after loli ban
based

why not host encrypted gibberish on traditional servers and use a client with an embedded key that fetches the gibberish and decrypts it? they can't kick you for hosting random numbers and letters

And to add, because these platforms are made what they are by gathering as many users as possible within their garden and making it as hard as possible to leave, these platforms ought to be regulated by utilities.

These companies use network effects to their benefit by effectively creating an informal monopoly. Nobody can point to any action they take as being a sign of a monopoly forming because they can always say "but anyone can make a website", whereas everyone actually knows that nobody would use a new website without significant money being thrown at it.

>He's so busy being smug about repealing Obama policies to notice that over half of the phone calls in the US are automated sales pitches
lol. I should thank him. This spam is making me seriously consider going full Stallman and ditching my phone.

>tor
>being a free speech hub
Holy shit you're retarded. That one "white supremacist" news site that moved to the tor network and them working to get it off of it doesn't ring any bells to you?

hang up = phone company cuts you off, poorly worded but you get my point
they don't have any obligation to let you use their networks you entitled retard.

that's basically what i2p is

we can even have a web extension that auto-translates it
>i was just posting random numbers i didnt know that i was talking about killing niggers
no, your analogy would correlate to someone ignoring or blocking you
i should be able to tweet nigger at whoever i want, but it isnt up to the US if they block me

>My point is that social media sites like facebook, twitter (and gab, to a much lesser extent) cannot be copied simply by putting up a new website, because the USERS of those products are what give them value.
So basically what you want is to able to preach to people without those people being able to tell you to fuck off?

The concept of "free speech" doesn't entitle you to a plaform on a
mass communications network like Facebook just like how when the founding fathers wrote the constitution, free speech didn't entitle anybody to use another man's printing press to spread ideas he disagrees with.

>not hosting all your servers in china
shiggy

>being so fanatic and obnoxious that you can't chat normally with other people so you get kicked out of the interwebs

>The concept of "free speech" doesn't entitle you to a plaform on a
>mass communications network like Facebook just like how when the founding fathers wrote the constitution, free speech didn't entitle anybody to use another man's printing press to spread ideas he disagrees with.
telephone companies, nigger

By your criteria, myspace would be regulated as a public utility. It too was once a monopoly

alt right discords cannot even exist without them getting banned, even if they arent doing anything illegal or fedposting
literally no one out of the channel is affected (assuming it isnt a raiding discord)
your point?

If trump blocking someone on Twitter is a violation of free speech banning an American from said service is also a violation.

You cannot have your cake and eat it to. Either these things are public utilities for free speech or they aren't

>harass/spam/whatever someone
>they tell the phone company
>phone company decides they don't want you using the phone lines anymore
it's not the US (unless it's under hate speech laws, in which case you should be making the case that inciting jihad on the internet shouldn't be illegal either) that's terminating alt right websites, it private hosting companies akin to phone companies.

No, anyone should be able to tell you to fuck off. My point is that these companies have products that effectively occupy a place in society similar to that of utilities, and it makes legal and moral sense to regulate them as such.
>another man's printing press
That's the part of my argument that you're missing, these social media sites are simply too large and impossible to replace for them to be compared to a printing press that can be mass manufactured. Social media site isn't an elastic good, even if 1000 of them sprung up overnight, users would still use the same ones they already use.

At the time it was popular, I would agree it most definitely should have been regulated as a utility.
Of course, if a social media site falls out of favor with the public and is no longer an informal monopoly, there's no need to keep regulating it as such.

because discord doesn't want them there. just like your local church hall doesn't want your alt right meeting on their grounds either. you sound like a communist.

>the gym shouldn't be able to ban me because there's only one in town and my friends lift there and so do their friends

Common carrier doesn't even apply to ISPs anymore and you Jow Forumsshits cheered when it happened because it was "owning the libs"

Good luck getting the common carrier definition to apply to social media companies that meet the definition even less than ISPs

this
i was hoping for mainstream repulicans to jump on this
if i get banned for calling rosen steinensteinsengoldblatt a ratfaced kike, i cant see the presidents tweets!
yeah, but tele companies can't do that, pub utilities (unless mobile not using phone lines)
i wasnt making that as a talking point, i was saying that your analogy was shit, and in that scenario the ebil natzee would still have service
i was addressing your shitpost about being banned because we "cannot chat with people normally"

free speech nigger

>That one "white supremacist" news site that moved to the tor network and them working to get it off of it doesn't ring any bells to you?
No it does not. It sounds like they're still up, though.

A gym isn't a monopoly, even an informal one. Try harder.

Anyone can build a new gym in the town given enough funds/builders/inspectors and have it be equivalent to the other gym.
But a new social media site will almost never acquire even a tiny fraction of the users of an established social network, because of network effects. This, as I said before, is what gives social media platforms in particular an informal monopoly quality.

And nothing of value was lost.

how much time until mods move this to Jow Forums and the discussion dies?
i give it another 50 replies. a lot of sensitive janitors nowadays sheesh

>A gym isn't a monopoly
Neither is any website. They are only "effective" monopolies because using different ones is sometimes inconvenient. That can be true of any business.

>But a new social media site will almost never acquire even a tiny fraction of the users of an established social network, because of network effects
Myspace.

Whole meme came out of it after tor had a Twitter rant about how if they could they would specifically remove the daily stormed from their service

Attached: IMG_20181028_002920.jpg (424x389, 23K)

b u t i f i u s e d i a l u p t w i t t e r c a n t
b a n m e f o r s a y i n g n i g g e r
the reason us polshits cheered for that is because whatever authority that could rule that could clearly be partial to whoever they wanted
i would cheer for an absolute statement that they need to be covered under free speech with no overhead bureaucracy
after roaming from 20 different fucking isps
people are addressing your shit analogies and then you switch them to being under us law
stop this

I'm done arguing with you. you can't seem to get the point I'm making through your thick entitled skull. nobody owes you shit and they don't have to act as a platform for you to talk shit.

>mfw people haven't read my books.

Attached: thomas-hobbes.jpg (900x750, 210K)

>Whole meme came out of it after tor had a Twitter rant about how if they could they would specifically remove the daily stormed from their service
That's pretty funny, but one of the many great things about Tor is that its developers do not have do approve of you. Only your ISP has to approve of you. As long as Tor exists and you have an ISP, nobody can kick you off of the Internet.

>after roaming from 20 different fucking isps
It's a shame that there aren't regulations in place to prevent ISPs from treating people unfairly.

>host provider has terms of service
>proceed to go against them
>complain on twitter after getting kicked out
wat

>entitled
>keep on getting banned from the interwebz
you really dont get it from your ivory tower dont you

Attached: Capture.png (179x202, 29K)

>using different ones is sometimes inconvenient
Not at all what i'm saying, please read my posts again. User network effects in social media isn't just a small "inconvenience" you can handwave away, it is a very strong factor, set in stone, that breaks the vast majority of new social media networks before they even launched a product.

For the tens of thousands of social media sites created in the last decade, you only hear about about 50 or so. A gym built is a gym built.

>shit analogies
I'm not switching out anything, none of the proposed analogies have been similar to mine in the least, even in spirit. A gym business doesn't have impossibly high barriers to entry like social media networks, period. Who is even talking about US law here? Are you high?

How can I even start taking my points further if people don't even understand what I'm saying? It's clear by the few analogies I've gotten in replies that are completely off the mark and not equivalent to my point at all. I think you haven't understood my point either, please read my posts in more detail or at least ask reasonable questions

PEOLE BE EVIL NIGGA MONARCHY GANG GANG GANG
until the heir dies and everything gets shitted up
this is why we need libertarian-fascism gang
popular support for a ruler, but keep free speech and muh gunz
when he do bad thing then BANG BANG BANG POP POP NIGGA
it needs to extend to media companies who are essentially monopolies not being able to quench free speech
almost as if that that's what ive been saying

The extra traffic is probably making money for the cell carriers hence why nothing is being done about it.

Yeah well, bed made. Lie. You wanted internet service providers to be less regulated under common carrier because less regulation is good for business. Now someone of your ideological bent finds out that the free market isn't that receptive to their ideas and suddenly you're crying for stringent regulation of companies under common carrier. Tough shit.

>keep on getting banned from the interwebz
>entitled in that you expect people to tolerate you regardless of how much of a bigoted vile unwashed asshole you are
autism. pure. fucking. autism. self awareness nigga, your actions have consequences and human communication is ultimately a kind of social court unto itself if you want to frame it in a weird autistic way. be creepy, get rejected by girl. be nazi, get banned from website. simple. go think about that champ.

arent we really small tiny crying babies though?
the alt right cant do shit, we didnt want this though, rabbi