Talk:Gab (social network)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Should "free speech" be written with quotes?

Currently, the lede is written: Gab is a far right American social networking service, created as an alternative to Twitter which promotes itself as supporting free speech. The lede wikilinks to an article about the freedom of speech. This is highly misleading. Because what Gab means by "free speech" is not the constitutional right to free speech but a more relaxed content regulation by a private company. It's marketing. The lede should be written with quotes around "free speech." Fluous (talk) 07:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Support Gab is appropriating the "free speech" talk which is a extremely common alt-right tactic. Research papers in above section pointed this out as merely a shield for its alt-right users. If you have time, please leave comments on my proposal above. Thank you. Tsumikiria (T/C) 07:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Do not support If your point is that because Gab is a private company and not required (by law) to protect the Constitutional rights of it's (presumed) American members, the use of scare quotes does not convey that intended meaning. It conveys a sarcastic, pessimistic bias, i.e. "that's just marketing", with the secondary connotation of "and it's probably false". Gab is in a fight for it's very existance, and as a US Corporation it also has rights, to include Free Speech. While it's Members may or may not have Constitutionally-protected rights on Gab (a matter of legal interpretation that is being wrangled over on this and other platforms), the Free Speech claim also applies to Gab itself. If you want to get into the various and substantive rights issues involved, a separate section in the Gab article would "improve the article", and I would support that. Gab has a right to exist, and convey the speech of it's members, with the full Constitutional protections any corporation (as legally defined by case law as a "person") would have. This is a trade war between a coordinated group of large, and monopolistic companies, and a small corporation with 6 employees. Free Speech (without quotes) absolutely applies.2605:6000:6947:AB00:403D:E24D:E465:4A0 (talk) 08:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

^ Does anybody really care what some St. Petersburg IP supports or doesn't support?

No. Volunteer Marek 19:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

It's actually standard practice for journalists to write a person or company's claims in quotes. I think this particular sentence actually does do a good job already. It's saying that the company claims to support free speech. But it should be further reinforced by quoting what the company says, not simply stating it as fact. Fluous (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

One could also make the exact same claim that Wikipedia's "not censored" clause should always be put in quotes, because it's "just marketing", and also that Wikipedia has "seized" a claim of free speech as a pretext to do something nefarious. Again, it's conspiratorial. Plus you'll need to find a reference that says this explicitly. Do you have a source that supports this line of thinking? Also while I'm at it, people throwing out the "nazi" pejorative, as well as the "St. Petersburg" reference (meaning "russians") undermines an Editor's credibility, shows their bias, and it's just a matter of time before some Admin steps in and cracks heads, so I recommend that it stop.2605:6000:6947:AB00:403D:E24D:E465:4A0 (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Support My understanding is "free speech" in the U.S. context means the government can't criminalise you for your speech whereas "free speech" in a business context means the company won't really censor you for your speech. SportingFlyer talk 09:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Do not support The company's view of the situation is that "corporate censorship is still censorship" (link). The company has also said that "Our moderation policy mirrors the First Amendment. Our sole objective is to provide all people with a means to exercise the First Amendment, as-written, on the Internet. That means making tough moderation calls - not because we agree with the speech but because we defend 1A." (link) Gab's role and positioning as a free speech platform is supported in numerous references currently in the article. Putting "free speech" in quotation marks implies that this concept is somehow being used dishonestly when in fact it's one of the oldest enlightenment political ideals and is very well understood. See: Free Speech. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Who gives a fuck what a neo-Nazi site's definition of "free speech" is? Volunteer Marek 19:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Neo-nazis are the ones who seized the "free speech" label to defend their racist rants. Gab is no different in this approach. Should you call the Democratic People's Republic of Korea a democratic, peoples', republic? Tsumikiria (T/C) 19:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. Volunteer Marek 14:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Support, it's important to make clear that we're quoting Gab on this and not stating it in the article voice, since it's a very value-laden statement. --Aquilion (talk) 00:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I still "Do not support", but this is a valid point, i.e. the "Wikipedia's voice" perspective. The problem is, by adopting quotes, that same voice diminishes Gab's position's legitimacy, while leaving them off appears to endorse it. Sometimes quotes are just quoting, and sometimes they are "scare quotes". Perhaps there is some 3rd alternative that avoids both of these bad outcomes.2605:6000:6947:AB00:403D:E24D:E465:4A0 (talk) 01:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• This shouldn't be a vote. Quoting claims is a standard Manual of Style practice. By removing quotation marks, it makes it sounds like objective fact, when it is in fact an POV claim by a person of interest. I suggest we close this discussion. Tsumikiria (T/C) 00:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

He doesn't deserve extra legitimacy compared to all other quotes here on Wikipedia per standard practice. This is not a scare quote case. Consider this section closed. Tsumikiria (T/C) 01:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose not necessary when it already includes "which promotes itself as supporting", which makes it different from saying "Gab supports free speech". It also looks silly to put quotes around a common term like that. I'm okay with the current version which says 'The site purports itself as an "alternative of Twitter" and "champions free speech".', which seems to come from the longer quote on their website "A social network that champions free speech, individual liberty and the free flow of information online." Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 09:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 30 October 2018

(This is my first time-out trying to do a "protected edit request".)

Please consider rearranging the text in the "Revenue" so that the text:

In July 2017 Gab also started an investment project which met its goal of $1.07 million on August 19, 2017.

is featured more prominently. I note the line:

On August 15, 2017, Torba announced plans for its own cryptocurrency, expecting Gab to be subject to "blacklisting" by third-party payment processors.

...gets it's own, "standalone line" (and it should, since it's distinct from everything else), but ONE MILLION DOLLARS is a BIG DEAL, and not an "after thought" appended to a paragraph.

In general, there's a contrasting counter-narrative to the Gab story, which is that, despite the condemnation and vitriol, average people are willing to support Gab with their MONEY. That's one aspect of the "David vs. Goliath" story that isn't being told here.

Second, there used to be a sourced quote, that was actually mis-quoted, describing how, despite the controversy, people are still willing to donate money and/or "buy in" to Gab. The heart of the story was that people were frustrated that they were unable give money to Gab (I assume donate), but that Torba was unavailable. The story listed 4 anecdotal examples of real people to support it's assertion. The original quote replaced the word "companies" with "investors", completely changing the meaning of the quoted text. My point is that if the source was reliable enough to be misquoted and cast Gab in a negative light, that same source can be used to provide balance to the Article now. People still support Gab, and want to give it money, is the point.

Money is the most reliable indicator of public support. Talk is cheap, and anyone can run their mouth online, and any lazy "journalist" can then cherry-pick through those opinions and create the illusion that Gab is being universally condemned. This advances the ideological Left's narrative, and it costs nobody anything, in fact the "journalists" then get paid. Money is the sincerest and most-reliable indicator of public support, and the fact that Gab has received, and continues to receive substantial financial support from the America grass roots is something that should be "reported" in Wikipedia. (I know Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a news outlet, but I can't think of a better word than "report". Also the use of the word "story" feels "off", but again I haven't got a better word.)Tym Whittier (talk) 00:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Is dailydot the source for the quote? SportingFlyer talk 01:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

No. This is undue weight to a POV narrative. The implication that this is and we should write this as a "Davis vs. Goliath" situation is at best, a fairy tale. Gab is ignoring the fact that the companies that it claims to censor them is under immense public pressure and making their decisions under the principles of a free-market economy. This is stated in the DailyDot source as well. Just because one believe their continuous effort in polishing themselves to be a victim of a "coordinated conspiracy" doens't make it true and make it an obligation for Wikipedia to follow. One million is something, but their nonresponse to backers and refusal to talk to non-conservative source should be noted too. I will edit the article to improve it. But "David vs. Goliath"? No. Tsumikiria (T/C) 02:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• There is obviously no consensus for this, so:  Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template..

We have no idea how many people are willing to put their money where there mouths are (or were). Trying to calculate this, and then using that calculation to indicate public support, would be blatant WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. If sources directly discuss this, let's see them. The Verge source cited in the article itself cites this source from The Outline. It's worth a read, as it demonstrates how incredibly convoluted this is. It's not the same as pledging to a kickstarter. The source also shows the outer-edges of Gab's purported commitment to transparency, which is also mentioned in The Daily Dot article. A crowdfunding campaign with a thousand participants is not significant just because THE AMOUNT OF MONEY IS TYPED IN CAPITALS. Gab has since moved into STOs, which are the new flavor of Initial coin offerings, but Gab is, apparently (?) still waiting on regulatory approval. As one of the major stakehoulders has dropped out of the company, I imagine that's not going to happen anytime too soon. So Gab is combining the complexity of venture finance with the complexity, and instability, of cryptocurrency, and the company is asking for its users to participate. Looking at Gab's StartEngine campaigns, there just doesn't seem like that many people. If we had a reliable, non-primary source which explains all this, I would be thrilled, but I haven't seen one which I trust. Grayfell (talk) 03:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, then, would it improve the Article if some of these complexities were introduced. Maybe not the "future funding" aspect, but:

I've always assumed that the 1+ million dollars was cash by average people, but based on what you've posted it sounds like the means of donations are more complicated than that. Was that million dollars real? I've heard of places like Patreon, and that other one, and have always wondered if it was just a "commitment to donate", vs. money in the bank. The donation method used would be nice to know, as I don't. Also I appreciate your introduction of the metric of "money to donors" ratio, as I agree that would be a really good indicator of mass support vs. a handful of moneyed investors. I don't know if your 1000 people (donating $1,000 each) was an actual figure, or a hypothetical to make the point, but if for example it was 10,000 people donating $10.00 each, that's very different in terms of public support, than say for example, 10 people each donating $100,000. I think including that information, if available, would be interesting. The whole cryptocurrency thing is lost on me. I have no clue, other than some basic knowledge about BitCoin, and did not intend to advocate in favor of getting into the apparent morass. The way you describe it seems "Ponzi-ish", and if that's the case, that information would also be good to include. Also I did not know that a "major stakeholder" withdrew their support, unless you mean Ekrem Bu-what's-his-name. His current financial relationship to Gab as it is now would also be interesting. Does he own shares, or something? Did he lose them when he left? etc...Tym Whittier (talk) 04:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

If I found a reliable source which supported that this was a Ponzi scheme, I would include it in the article. I'm not an expert, and I don't know for sure, but I don't think it's anything like that.

1,000 was not hypothetical. Per the Daily Dot source, the number of investors at the time the first crowd-funding campaign closed was 1,264. The StartEngine page currently lists 1,001 and slightly higher money, which was probably just the dust settling as unqualified investors were removed or dropped-out. The SEC has limits to how much people can invest based on their income or net worth, to prevent naive investors from losing their life savings. If this doesn't seem fair, well, think of it like a driver's license. The idea is that there needs to be some way to make sure people know what they are getting into and are taking sober risks, because at this level of finance, innocent people will suffer the consequences if things go wrong (think Enron or Pyramid schemes in Albania).

Again, I recommend reading the Outline source, as it's a useful perspective which explains a lot of this better than I can. Per the Outline source from last year, Ekrem Büyükkaya owned about 28% of common stock, with Torba owning 67%. I don't know what it is now. The source also describes a million dollars as a "seed round", implying that it's a quantity of money a wealthy, informed investor would put into company early on in its history, with the understanding that it's comparatively risky. It is also the maximum that a company can raise per year in this way under this law (the JOBS Act, through the crowdfunding exemption movement). This isn't the maximum they can raise at all, just through crowd-funded investments. These are not donations, they are investments. Of course, if the company goes under, it won't make much of a difference to the "investors".

Like I said, it's incredibly convoluted. The blockchain stuff is especially complex (you might even call it... cryptic) but there are a serious lack of reliable sources which are also knowledgeable about the ins-and-outs of this tech. To avoid WP:OR, we really would need a reliable source explaining this. There are some mentioning this, but I do not trust any of the outlets. From what I've read, Torba is also skeptical of this technology, which is why they went with STOs instead of easier, and sketchier, ICOs. Again, we need a decent source to even consider including this in the article. Grayfell (talk) 05:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Idea just occurred to me. Isn't there substantive information on-file with the SEC? Isn't it publically available? Assume it's considered reliable. All that information regarding shares, etc... would be interesting to include in the Article. I still think ONE MILLION DOLLARS should be in all caps, and with glitter around it. 1,000 people donating 1,000 dollars each seems substantive and interesting. Is there a reason why it can't/shouldn't be included?Tym Whittier (talk) 01:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Because it could also be 999 people each contributing $1 and one person (perhaps Torba himself) giving $999,001. A sum of money and a number of people is fact. A sum of money, each people giving a specific amount isn't, because there isn't, and perhaps may never will, be a reliable source to support this claim. And without such a support, this is original thought, which belong better to a social media, than an encyclopedia. "Any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources", is WP:OR. It is understandable that you think Gab is a victim and should be praised with CAPITALS and glitters. But you also have to be informed that, Wikipedia is not a place to seek justice, or truth. Tsumikiria (T/C) 02:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 29 October 2018

The comment below is untrue, GAB mearly is temporarily down and have stated in their Twitter "Gab isn't going anywhere". See <https://twitter.com/getongab/status/1057049325920911361>.

As of October 29, GAB site has been officially closed. Please change the status of it from "Active" to "Closed Down"} 96.245.52.19 (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

We're discussing this in another section.2605:6000:6947:AB00:403D:E24D:E465:4A0 (talk) 15:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Disagree The site is only temporarily down. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 04:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Grayfell (talk) 06:14, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Feelings over Knowledge

This article reads ridiculous. Gab's proposal is to be an "unfiltered" community. The alt-right - whatever you consider it to be - might be more present and even constitute the main demographic of the website, but that's a CONSEQUENCE of its unfiltered nature, so people who weren't accepted elsewhere flee to the platforms they have available. The site itself is not promoting all the political discourse one may find on the website.

I suggest rewriting the article in a neutral way, describing its normal Twitter-like features and the fact that it's supposed to be Twitter, but unfiltered. THEN, add a sentence to the end (on the introduction text) explaining that the site receives heavy criticism because of the big influx of alt-righters migrating from other platforms. Make an entire section about it, name it "Alt-right overtake", "Controversy", whatever you want. Go all out, but on the appropriate, self-contained section. Can you imagine opening up some page about an actor and read "Mr. So-and-so is a rapist and sexual predator[1][2][3][4][5] known for so-and-so controversy. He is also an actor.

That's what you're doing, I don't think "reliable" sources should override the site's self-declared purpose. Just list it separately. Also, I agree with keeping it locked, since it's definitely a hot-topic prone to flamewars. Just hope people editing it have the maturity to use the lock as a way to protect information, not a political bias.187.122.125.147 (talk) 02:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Your first few paragraphs raise good points which we can address within policy, see WP:NPOV. D.Creish (talk) 02:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with all of that, however the Article is going to be written via consensus. That "vision" is an ideal that isn't going to happen. I'll also mention that it's widely believed, and there may be some real evidence to support the idea, that there is a direct relationship between "Moderation" and "Leaning Left". Unmoderated forums always lean right, and moderated forums always lean left. So the idea that Gab is somehow "special" because it has a higher number of right-wingers than what would find on an unmoderated forum is not JUST because of Gab itself. This type of dynamic is found in every online community. The greater the level of moderation, the more it moves left. Less moderation, and it moves right. None of this is really applicable to the Article, but it's good to be aware of it because of all the claims that there is some "invisible racist quality X" that makes Gab somehow inherently "right wing". It's unmoderated, and that's just what naturally happens, everywhere.Tym Whittier (talk) 03:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia summarizes topics in proportion to reliable sources. Per policy, we are not a platform for public relations, so the site's self-declared purpose is has no special privilege here. We use reliable sources to decide which aspects are defining traits, not editors. If reliable sources emphasize the ideology of the site's users above and beyond the site's technical details, WP:NPOV says that the article will follow. As for moderation being inherently leftist, that's an interesting claim, but without clearly defined terms it's too simple to take at face value. Without a reliable source explicitly tying this to Gab, it's WP:OR anyway. Grayfell (talk) 03:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Lead proposal 2

Alright, fellow Wikipedians. I've rewrote the lead once again using Conservapedia as an example.

Gab is an English-language social network service. It allows its users to read and write multimedia messages of up to 300 characters, called "gabs". The website was created by Andrew Torba in 2016 to counter what he preceive as "left-leaning Big Social monopoly [sic]" in other social media platforms. The site purports itself as an "alternative of Twitter" and "champions free speech".

Gab has attracted migration of known banned users from other social networks, most of whom members of the far right. Gab reached 465,000 users in April 2018, a majority of which are white, conservative males. Many of Gab's most followed users are prominent far-right individuals, including Richard B. Spencer, Mike Cernovich, and Alex Jones.

Gab has attracted heavy criticism, described as "extremist friendly" or a "safe haven" for Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and alt-right. Gab's self-promotion of "free speech" has been criticised in research articles as "merely a shield behind which its alt-right users hide", and "an echo chamber for right-leaning content dissemination". The site gained extensive public scrutiny since the 2018 Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, as the attack's perpetrator maintained a verified account on Gab. On October 29, 2018, after a backlash from hosting providers, Gab took themselves offline, pending relocation to a new hosting site.

Hopefully this will be towards WP:NPOV. Other new contents from the papers can go to the article body. Thank you. Tsumikiria (T/C) 03:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I've copy edited it extensively to clean up typos and punctuation. I have no opinion on whether it gets used or not. SportingFlyer talk 05:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I've taken the liberty to push this rewrite to the article based on WP:NOW. I will begin supplement the rest of the article. Thanks. Tsumikiria (T/C) 05:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Regarding "Big Social", Torba's idiosyncratic capitalization is, presumably, a play on Big Oil and the Big Pharma conspiracy theory, etc. Using a [sic] seems like editorialize against MOS:SIC, and if this quote is really confusing enough to need this clarification, we should find a better quote.

As for the academic sources, as I tried to explain above, I'm hesitant to lean too hard on these studies by themselves. I would much rather summarize third-party sources for studies like this, but perhaps I'm being over-cautious.

I also feel like "attracted heavy criticism" is a filler. We can just say that "Gab has been described as..." no?

Whether or not Gab took itself offline or was kicked off by its hosts is debatable, but we can wait for more clarity from sources.

Otherwise, this seems fine to me. Grayfell (talk) 06:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

While my personal opinion is that he is clearly delusional, this quote appears fine to me, at least now. Academic sources supplements media source, I think they add more verifiability.

I don't know which phrasing it deserves, but let's go for the concise one. Thank you. Tsumikiria (T/C) 07:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Hey, Tsumikiria, I think that reads very reasonable now; it does dedicate a lot of space to external opinion of Gab, rather than its "mission" or technical side, but, as mentioned by Grayfell, these topics are pretty much all the media has been talking about, so I think it's fair enough. I don't know if anonymous users have any say in this, but since it's under a discussion section I opened, I'd just like to leave my aye here to this proposed edit. 187.122.125.147 (talk) 06:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Anonymous users are welcomed to share opinions of Articles on Wikipedia. If you have more materials to add, me and Greyfell or other editors should be able to help. Tsumikiria (T/C) 07:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Disagree Too long and does not provide the free speech perspective, only the critical perspective. This article is getting more and more biased. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 01:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Gab SEC filings

Take a look at page 20:

Our Market and Industry We welcome everyone, but see a unique opportunity to carve a niche in a massively underserved and unrepresented market. We estimate that there are over 50 million conservative, libertarian, nationalist, and populist internet users from around the world who are seeking an alternative to the current social networking ecosystems. These users are also actively seeking alternative media platforms like Breitbart.com, DrudgeReport.com, Infowars.com, and others. Through November 26, 2017 alone, Breitbart.com had over 2.2 billion page views from around the world. As mainstream social networks continue to crack down on "objectionable content" and censor conservative views, we believe the need for alternative platforms will only continue to rise. We believe the trend of "cutting the cord" will continue as the popularity of streaming content over the internet increases. We believe this will also begin a fragmentation process of the social networking ecosystem into smaller niche communities with shared values and ideals.

These admissions seem rather revealing about its intended market. I'm not sure what to do with this information, but it certainly helps complete the picture. And it's certainly at odds with what's written in the lede. Fluous (talk) 05:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

This would be a goldmine since they had to reveal honestly to their investors. I am reading this new piece: From Silicon Valley elite to social media hate: The radicalization that led to Gab by WaPo, also mentioning this, among other important thing like Archived twitter link to Gab's now-deleted antisemetic and racist-leaning tweets and aspects of about Torba's life, which will definitely improve the article once included. Thank you. Tsumikiria (T/C) 05:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I suggest the following additions, to be added in Users or a separate subsection:

In a filing to U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in early 2018, Gab declared its target market was the "over 50 million conservative, libertarian, nationalist, and populist" worldwide internet users, and listed far-right conspiracy theorist websites Breitbart News and InfoWars as its main competitors.

---

Gab's twitter account, which Torba admitted as often written by himself, had posted anti-immigrant and anti-semitic contents which the Washington Post noted as "raise questions about whether they cross the line into impropriety". In response to a tweet calling for the abolishment of borders, the account quote-replied: "Let a bunch of Somalians migrate to your neighborhood and see if you change your mind."

In another noted occurrence, the account posted pictures of two observant Jew men, with the text: "These two guys show up at your front door. Who do you let in and who do you call the cops on?", "I mean I’m calling the cops on both and getting my shotgun ready, just saying."

Torba initially denied the authenticity of said postings, before dismissing it as "clearly satire/comedy" and means of promoting "importance of free expression". In a later tweet, the account declared the tweets as "few edgy tweets posted by interns". The tweets are since deleted by the account.

Tsumikiria (T/C) 08:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Update: One of the man in the second tweet's pictures appears to be Ken White, writer of the website Popehat. This should definitely be noted. Shall I contact him for more source? Tsumikiria (T/C) 08:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Disagree Breitbart is not a "far-right conspiracy theorist website." This article is totally out of control. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 01:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

It should only be noted to the extent that it's noted in reliable sources. Maybe the four-author Washington Post article could be used to mention the tweets, but the bit about Popehat is getting lost in the weeds. Look at what reliable sources are saying as a whole, and summarize. Only use primary sources for necessary details, with attribution when possible. As a blogger, White's publications are of limited value to this article. He's certainly an expert on law, but anything he told you would be WP:OR, and unusable. If you think he knows of existing published reliable sources, that would be another reason to contact him. Otherwise, using Pophat's photo is just more social media noise from someone who's entire public persona is making social media noise. Grayfell (talk) 03:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Do not inject comments into the middle of other people's comments, as it makes it far too difficult to follow conversations. See WP:TPG.

As for the compaint, see WP:BREITBART. Breitbart is far-right, and is not a credible source for factual information according to an overwhelming number of tedious discussions on Wikipedia. Is it a "conspiracy theorist website"? Meh. In that context, listing that as a defining trait is editorializing, but it ain't wrong. Grayfell (talk) 04:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Self-description in the lead.

It's important to be cautious about how we describe Gab in the first paragraph of the lead. We can mention its description of itself (as reported in reliable secondary sources), but that has to be coupled with a paraphrase of the rest of what what those secondary sources say on the topic - it's misleading to present one without the other when the secondary coverage that disagrees with its self-description is so overwhelming. --Aquillion (talk) 04:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree. With that in mind, I added "best known for..." and reordered the lead as shown here. For example, how many characters are in a "gab" was the least important piece of information in there. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think this reorder is needed, as we just resolved an edit request to rewrite the lead. We need more comment input. We have all the necessary parts for lead, but reordering will be tricky. Having the shooting and offline part is needed, by having them on second paragraph is a bit WP:RECENTISM, I moved it to bottom. Plus, we should paraphrase, not directly quoting the company's target market statement. The current 2nd, 3rd paragraph can merge together, as they're both about its users. Tsumikiria (T/C) 05:36, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Remove quote from CEO?

I'm not sure why this is the second sentence in the lead:

• The website was created by Andrew Torba in 2016 to counter what he perceived as "left-leaning Big Social monopoly" in other social media platforms.

The CEO is non-notable, and the placement of the quote gives too much weight to the company's view of itself. Feedback? --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Support I now regret adding this. This is undue weight and without the quote the whole sentense can be omitted. Tsumikiria (T/C) 01:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, just change it, T. Fluous (talk) 01:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

This is madness. A statement by the founder of the company is not notable enough to appear in the article about that company? Even though it was sourced? He is not notable enough to have his own article, but he certainly can and should be quoted here. Fnordware (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF places specific limits on what we can cite someone's own words for; this is clearly a self-serving statement, so we'd need a secondary source to back it up. Beyond that, weight is assessed based on prominence in reliable sources (and how mainstream or high-quality those sources are); random quotes by an article's subject or the like don't automatically get any weight if there's no evidence that that particular quote attracted attention. Wikipedia isn't the place for people to uplift quotes they personally feel are important, meaningful, illuminating and so on - we're an encyclopedia, so we're supposed to provide a summary of what the best sources say. --Aquillion (talk) 03:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

But this is not an article about the CEO, it's an article about the company. Also per WP:ABOUTSELF the publisher of the article was not the CEO, i.e. it was not self-published. It is absolutely relevant and needed given the article's current one-sided slant. Fnordware (talk) 01:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

We were only talking about removing this mention from lede, since it is already covered in the first sentence of the first section of this article. Who and when created this can easily be seen in the infobox, and their claims are already established in the lead as well. Tsumikiria (T/C) 03:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

"Alt Right"

I must strongly object to the term 'alt right' as a collective name for the internet critics of the political status quo. Alt right is a name that was given by others to what is a very wide range of critics, encompassing republicans, libertarians, conservatives, patriots, even liberals who are true to real liberalism, and a host of other individuals and groups. To coin them 'alt right' is a way of delegitimizing the "populist" movement that is gaining support.

"Other alt-right and conservative media personalities, including ......" is a false statement, as most of these people have denounced the name 'alt right' and what it stands for.

I understand that it is hard for Wikipedia editors to categorize this very varied group of critical thinkers and content creators, but to use the term 'alt right' as a collective name is taking a political stand, not objective and therefor is contrary to the neutral standpoint Wikipedia should take. At least a citation is needed as to who coined and who now uses the term 'alt right' and question it's legitimicy Ayo (talk) 09:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses reliable sources, not personal experience or original research. Wikipedia likewise isn't a platform for public relations or advertising. The reliable sources used in this article which I've seen don't really consider Gab to be varied, nor do they describe the site's users as "critical thinkers". The article includes many citations regarding Gab (and alt-right includes many citations about that term's history). Wikipedia's neutral standpoint means we don't whitewash content merely because users of a particular business might be offended by how reliable analysts describe their behavior. Grayfell (talk) 09:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

"Alt-right" is not a term given by others to a "wide range of critics". "Alt-right" is a term created by those in the alt-right and is term promoted by those identifying with the alt-right. Some people in the alt-lite wing of the alt-right have tried to distance themselves from the more open white nationalists in the alt-right, but they embraced the term before the events at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, NC in 2017. They embraced alt-right politics and still do. Benjamin5152414 (talk) 02:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Aditionaly while most of the page correctly points out that the site is considered alt right by most people, the initial description falsely claims it is an alt right website. Weather alt right people do or do not use the site is irrelevant as the site itself is not inherently alt right in nature and there is no relevant information in any of the four articles used as evidence. Please remove the claim or replace it with a more correctly worded option indicating it is commonly used by alt right or is considered alt right as that is the only thing the citations indicate. -Hyperionofakad — Preceding unsigned comment added by HyperionofAkad (talk • contribs) 04:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The label "alt-right" is defamatory, this article begins by revealing how it lacks neutrality with barely four words into it. Gab.ai is a free speech platform, on it you will find alt-right, leftists, and moderates. Par for the course with sjw moderated wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xtofury (talk • contribs) 17:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I take issue with user:Grayfell's claim that Wikipedia prefers reliable source over personal experience or self-research, at least in some cases. It is not always wise to accept 3rd party reports created by persons with little or no first-hand experience of a social medium at face value (sometimes by persons allegedly with their own bias) over what is obvious by looking at a site with one's own eyes. Doing so only feeds into the conservative theme of Main Stream Media liberal bias. For two years I have personally followed Gab with a sometimes detached, sometimes more intense, interest due to it's free speech advocacy. I have not read or seen anywhere that Gab (or Andrew Torba) advocates or enables violence or encourages incitement to bias. In fact quite the opposite, I have seen pleas for users to create topics on various topics such as gardening! It seems obvious to anyone who thinks about it for a moment that if Twitter really does have a liberal bias (not saying it does, just rhetorical supposition), then it would seem natural that liberal users would tend to stay there because they feel comfortable and unthreatened whereas conservatives would be forced off the platform by shadowbanning, or outright deplatforming (such as happened to the likes of Milo Yiannopolous and Alex Jones). The fact that these personalities sometimes become popular on Gab is not necessarily a goal of Gab but a side effect of free speech. If they were on Twitter they would have large followings there, which they did and for which they were deplatformed. Not everyone that follows them is an admirer by the way. Free speech is not about sheltering people from different ideas but about exposing them to new ideas. The best ideas win. It's a messy process, and fraught with some danger, but what is the alternative? Censorship? On Gab it is easy to mute any user who spouts foolishness. So treating Gab like it is some kind of news media source endorsing each and every member post is ludicrously absurd and a double standard. Even Twitter and FB don't go that far.

Thought experiment: How would Gab conduct its social media service differently to address liberal criticism without sacrificing freedom of speech? Has it come to the point that Americans want the what Russia and China already have? Censorship? Freedom from exposure to alternative viewpoints, even incorrect ones?

Our founding fathers foresaw the importance of free speech, they failed to foresee the powerful role high tech social media would play in mediating that free speech via a relative monopoly (a pserson cannot just go out and start their own internet, although something close to that may eventually become necessary to preserve free speech).

All this is simply a way of shedding light on a different perspective of the topic which apparently is invisible to many of the current editors but highly relevant to the battle of ideas and phrases. DellAnderson (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh! Gardening! Just because someone buys groceries doesn't alleviate their positions. "not necessarily a goal of Gab but a side effect of free speech" This is pure WP:OR. If you have no published, reliable, secondary sources to back this, there is no place for it on Wikipedia. Free speech does not mean someone can just spew their racist rant without taking consequences. The reports on Arxiv are quantitative study backed by data of real gab posts, and that's what we're going to use.

Plus, Andrew Torba has a history in promoting violence against journalists, even stating that he will raise his children to hate journalists. He's quite efficient in deleting his old, dirty posts. Tsumikiria (T/C) 20:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Tsumikiria, if Torba stated that he will raise his children to hate journalists (assuming it's even true), that's perfectly acceptable as opposed to raising his children to harm journalists. You can't seriously suggest to me that was an act of promoting violence there. All the citation references next to this "alt-right" label is ridiculous, in so far as it's references to legacy media whom all have their own agendas to push and none of them are about what is factual. Yes, it is true that as a side-effect of free speech, you will have undesirable opinions coming to light and yes, sadly, there have been a large number of neo-Nazis and the like taking part there. Whether you like it or not, they do still have a voice and the beauty of everyone having a voice is that we can denounce them. The studies you refer to are not quantitative in that they do not truly quantify every single conversation, let alone a reasonable sample, to demonstrate that Gab is by and large a haven for the alt-right. It was designed for EVERYONE and not just those in the same echo chamber. For example, Twitter doesn't even allow a robust conversation about sexism (and the hypocrisy of some), and somehow that's an acceptable form of censorship for you? No. Censorship is an "all or nothing" deal. What you ask for is going to affect you some day as well. Instead of focusing on politics, feelings and some delusion of achieving a Utopia, think about what you're doing to your own future, even if you don't care for the rest of us. Going against the minority grain does not make one alt-right and the studies you refer to do not come from anyone with a neutral view. By perpetuating the unfounded lie about Gab being "alt-right," you damage the integrity of Wikipedia. Stick to the cold, hard facts. Leave the labels out of it. They serve no other purpose than to create further resentment and division. Gab isn't the problem. Gab is a product of the failures of Silicon Valley and its followers such as yourself, whom have created the monsters that bring harm to innocent lives, such as the recent shooting. Starclassic (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Unfounded lie? When Gab's most followed individuals are almost entirely comprised of alt-right figureheads and Neo-Nazi fascists (https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.05287), it would be impossible that a mere minority of users promoted these individuals to most influential status on Gab. Supported by far too may evidence, Gab is, a de facto platform for alt-right discourse. After all, are there any mainstream celebrity, writer, actor, creator on Gab? I haven't seen any. Just persons like Milo Yiannopoulos and Mike Cernovich.

Oh you blame me for the shooting? When did I say I endorse them? Good job constructing a straw man, and congrats that this is your 5th ever edit on Wikipedia. Tsumikiria (T/C) 21:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Let's tone it down a little, no one on wikipedia's responsible for the shooting. Tsumikiria, from what I can tell the paper you cite wasn't published in a recognized journal or cited by other academics. Am I wrong? D.Creish (talk) 21:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Although not published on a journal, this paper is cited by 7 other papers. See here. I'm still reading through them. I'll update my proposal later. Thank you. Tsumikiria (T/C) 21:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

"Free speech does not mean someone can just spew their racist rant without taking consequences." So how is it that Twitter continues to allow Louis Farakhan a platform without critique? What should be the consequences for racism? If so, there are plenty of racists against whites on Twitter. As for your claim that my statements regarding Gab are pure WP:OR, I understand what you think you mean, but it is not relevant to a published easily available online source such as Gab. A moderator and I agreed that Gab could be a source for Gab. So shall we cite Gab.com as my reference? Arxiv (presumably this reference: https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.05287 ) is not a WP:RS for one simple reason: There is no accepted generally agreed upon definition of hate speech (unless you count such ambiguous definitions as https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hate%20speech which even includes any words that might 'offend' someone), therefore any results of that study are by definition biased. As for Andrew Torba promoting violence against journalists, that sounds like libel against a living person unless you have a published, reliable, secondary source to back your claims. DellAnderson 20:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DellAnderson (talk • contribs) 20:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Just saw this reference. Is New York Times up to WP:RS standards? Any reason NYT's considers Torba's statement against violence post Synagogue shooting yet moderator/editors here don't? https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/28/us/gab-robert-bowers-pittsburgh-synagogue-shootings.html DellAndersonDellAnderson (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

What Twitter does is irrelevant for the sake of the article. "Without critique" is clearly false. Twitter users certainly don't downvote critics of him to oblivion, unlike what might happen on Gab to a critic of alt-right. Remember how Gab users drove women off their site? "racism against white on Twitter" This is only preceived, with no concrete evidence. Plus your experience and concept of racism may be far limited.

Research papers of a quantitative study isn't a WP:RS simply because you think hate speech is an ambiguous concept? Oh the Evolution is a complete hoax because someone thinks cell division is an "ambiguous definiton". You're falsifying quote from M-W. "speech expressing hatred" also from Dictionary.com: "speech that attacks, threatens, or insults a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability."

For Torbas's posts. Here is the source: 1 2 3

Tsumikiria (T/C) 21:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I think the methods used to attempt to quantify speech in terms of some quality called "hate" is ambiguous at best, with the additional belief that it's existance is nothing more than a pretext for fragile and angry people to find political/social consensus. It gives them power. It's real and insidious purpose is to give one ideology (Marxism) the power to control the speech of another competing ideology (Freedom), and their ability to associate. I've already described, in another Section, how the method to evaluate the Gab communities' "hate speech percentage" was bogus, which you've ignored, possibly because you know that it's bogus, but it serves your ends. My concern is that Wikipedia blindly adopts and submits to the ADL/SPLC's methods of evaluating which speech is deemed politically correct and acceptable, and which speech is "hate" and requires authoritarian censorship, and applies those bogus standards to this, and other, Wikipedia Articles, in direct contradiction to it's "not censored" policy. The current version of this Article is riddled with this politically biased and pseudo-scientific method of ideological speech control, and my posts calling attention to continue to be ignored. However, having said that, I do enjoy reading your perspectives, and hope that they continue.Tym Whittier (talk) 10:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for translating "ayy hate speech is such an overrated term used by communist snowflakes to totally destroy American freedom" into intricate words. None of what you said is backed by anything other than some fringe conspiracy theory. What IS your ideal definition of hate speech then? Seeing you so vehemently oppose ADL/SPLC, it really rings some bell in my head that I've seen this rhetoric in some alt-right conspiracy theories that jews control the ADL/SPLC for their agenda etc etc.. If you disagree on the basic definitions, it might be more helpful to file your complaints on Talk:Hate speech then. Wikipedia is not some place where you argue to death for your truth(WP:TRUTH), rather it go by what reliable sources say, leaving judgements to readers. This article simply states these percentages and the paper's author's methods and conclusions in plain, without giving extra conclusions. If your think their method of using hatebase is bogus pseudoscience, why not challenge them in your own study instead?

Secondly, Marxism simply means class struggle is an eternal force in society and workers should own and manage their own workplace. Don't confuse it with some genocidal tyranncal dictators. The videos of Dr. Richard D. Wolff, professor emeritus in economics is a good start. Please read your book. Tsumikiria (T/C) 01:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

You've ignored my primary point, which relates directly to the Article. I'll restate it for you:

My concern is that Wikipedia blindly adopts and submits to the ADL/SPLC's methods of evaluating which speech is deemed politically correct and acceptable, and which speech is "hate" and requires authoritarian censorship, and applies those bogus standards to this, and other, Wikipedia Articles, in direct contradiction to it's "not censored" policy.

I would also argue that demonizing a social media website as "hateful" using the goofy pseudoscentific metrics of a politically biased non-profit organization is a form of censorship, using "scare tactics" to delegitimize the organization based on the alleged actions of a small minority. No one does this with Islam.Tym Whittier (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Nowhere in Wikipedia or in this particular article are we "blindly adopting and submitting to the ADL/SPLC's methods". And nowhere in this article expressly demonize or characterize the site with hateful things. If we were doing that, we wouldn't use wordings like "According to that study" and use quotation marks on the term "hate word". This is not contrary to WP:CENSOR policy, because the policy is expressly referring to a different situation. If you believe that Wikipedia shouldn't present things that are not to your liking, you are free to continue your quest on finding somewhere that serves you better. Maybe Conservapedia. Tsumikiria (T/C) 04:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

New Gab Logo (11/05/2018)

Gab is back online, and with a new official branding. I support adding this image as their logo. It is the name Gab with a peace dove on the right. [1]2601:982:4200:A6C:A10A:5CFC:B501:66E6 (talk) 05:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Whether or not is this a blatant whitewashing and cashing in attempt aside, it is pretty likely that this tragedy-inspired change will be temporary. And Wikipedia is not a place to document marketing stunts. Looks like Torba deleted the tweet introducing this logo after getting widely condemned. Maybe the event could be included in text if a reliable source wrote about this. Tsumikiria (T/C) 05:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

FYI, October's image was an orange jack-o-lantern, and was the 1st change since the original green frog was adopted. It's possible that Gab is going to regularly "rotate" their image/icon on a monthly basis, like Google does on it's front page every day. If this is the case, then the decision is going to need to be made on whether or not this Article is going to be continuously updated (possibly monthly) as this image changes. I vote no, for several reasons.Tym Whittier (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Second notice of outside canvassing

Several hours ago Gab's Twitter account posted this to its 150,000 followers:

This is not going to age well.

The tweet displays a cropped screenshot of Gab's Wikipedia mobile page: [2].

One possible instance of this canvassing effort [3] has been deterred thanks to User:Fluous. We need to be more vigilant. I've added Template:recruiting to warn possible WP:MEAT. <redacted> Tsumikiria (T/C) 01:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Guys, Wikipedia is not the place for activism. That's what Twitter and Facebook are for. If you can't be objective, maybe you should start a blog. Fnordware (talk) 03:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The tweet has since been deleted, and I have no idea what the point of this was. I fail to see a connection between the "cropped image", meat puppetry and the idea of something "aging well". No clue on what that "something" may be.Tym Whittier (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The article should be about Gab, not it's users

In this article, there is a section named "Users and content". There is no reason for "Users" to be here. It offers information about the users of Gab, rather than things that describe the platform it's self. Information about specific users should be mentioned on Wikipedia articles for those users, as that information pertains to those users, not Gab. Information about the content on Gab should still be on the article, but individual examples and information regarding users on Gab should be reserved for pages on those users. This is another reason why "Known for it's far-right user base" should be removed from the lede, aside from it's opinionated feel, and the source cited not supporting the claim. Ridiceo (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Social networking sites, by definition, are in large part "about" the social networks for which they provide a platform. Those networks, in turn, are very much "about" the prominent nodes -- in this case, users -- around which networks organize themselves. PaulCHebert (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, the sources which discuss Gab frequently if not always discuss it in the context of its user base - there's no opinion or incorrect WP:SYNTH here. SportingFlyer talk 23:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

A definition is the meaning of a word, not what that thing actually is. Using 'Definitions' as an arguing point doesn't stand well. A social networking service (also social networking site, or SNS or social media) is an online platform which people use to build social networks or social relations with other people who share similar personal or career interests, activities, backgrounds or real-life connections.

In other words, the social media site hosts the social network. The site its self hosts the social network, but the social network is not the social media site. That social network can still exist even if the social networking (social media) site decides to remove them from that site. Ridiceo (talk) 00:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

But they haven't removed the users to make it less politically conservative. The user base is what makes this article as notable as it is. SportingFlyer talk 00:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

The site's far-right users are the primary if not sole reason why it is notable. The whole article could be well removed if there is no mention to its users because it is a UGC and who care about some marketing languages. And it's not like the user section is the foremost section with 90% weight or something. We don't mass remove things like this. Tsumikiria (T/C) 00:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Whether or not they haven't removed the users doesn't matter. There are still anti-semetic social networks on twitter that haven't been removed, but that doesn't mean that those social networks define what the social networking site is or what it's about. The site didn't cause those users to go to that site. We could talk about how their moderation policy caused those users to flock to that website, but those users being there don't define the website. Even if the website banned everyone that wasn't far-right, it isn't those users that define what that networking site is about, it is the policies and actions that the website has taken that does, and the implications of those policies and actions. Ridiceo (talk) 01:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Sure. We could--but we go by what secondary sources say. Let's move on. Drmies (talk) 01:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

This discussion is meaningless. We could as well write Twitter as antisemitic, if only they advertise to, align themselves to, and uses the same rhetoric as antisemites just like what Gab does. Tsumikiria (T/C) 01:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

There isn't any evidence that Gab "advertise[s] to, align[s] themselves to, and uses the same rhetoric as antisemites" It isn't accurate to describe Twitter or Gab as anti-semetic unless there Is evidence proving so. I was specifically referring to using a Social Network to describe what the Social Networking site is, which is exactly what "Known for it's far-right user base" in the lede, and the "User" category does. Also, we can discuss the impact of Gab's guidelines without using primary sources. Ridiceo (talk) 01:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)