There’s a lot to unpack here, It’s mostly factually correct but Rosenberg chooses “racist-friendly” when “first amendment friendly” or “free speech friendly” or “censorship-free” would do. Instead he picks his words so his politics and misleading intentions are on display
Next, the article correctly states “that's provided a home for people like the suspect in Pittsburgh's synagogue shooting (as well as a lineup of noteworthy racists),” but in a glaring lie of omission neglects to mention that the shooter was also active on Facebook.
What does the author think will happen when the political winds [inevitably] shift against his position?
Do you think he will be as sanguine if the same policies are enacted against his beliefs?
Not everyone believes forced tolerance and censorship virtues, but I digress…
@Stripe and @Joyent look to be the next to cut off services. As a reminder, Gab is guilty of nothing here other than being a platform for free speech and having a mad man on its platform.
Are there mad men on other platforms? Maybe some who hate termites?
The great benefit of an open platform is that we all get to see these ideas for disasters that they are - and respond with better ideas.
The free market of ideas works as well for ideology as it does for capital markets. It's not perfect, but better than any alternatives.
The article tries further to sarcastically conflate the meaning of “protected classes” with regard to minorities vs. “hateful bigots,” before concluding “that’s not how free speech works in America,” offering little in the way of context or evidence for his conclusion.
Fortunately for America, free speech is remarkably simple: Don’t openly call for violence against other people, and you’re pretty much fine, regardless of how much the pearl-clutching censorship-loving editors at @Mashable would like to be otherwise.
“Gab users are free to post whatever they want, within the site's rules, but third-party interests are under no obligation to maintain a business relationship”
Very true, and it would be interesting to know if Rosenberg thinks the bakers should be required to bake the cake.
“Them's the breaks when you provide a platform for hate” which is not really saying anything as it does not logically follow that allowing free speech means your services will be cut off and you’ll be slandered and libeled across all media.
It does serve a purpose as a reminder to all of us that the media is unabashed in it’s push to control the platforms and particulars of how we the people exercise our right to free speech and consume information.
Nothing new except the hand behind the pen.