Talk:Gab (social network)

Gab tweet

Should this be mentioned in the Gab article, or is it a bit too trivial? https://mashable.com/article/gab-american-dream-video-game-tweet-self-own/ X-Editor (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd say it's too trivial but open to other thoughts. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree its just trivia, what does it actual tell us?Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Too recent, too trivial, Gab still doesn't understand humor. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Yup, and the most hilarious part of it all was that it was a self-own. X-Editor (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Info about storming of the capitol in the lede

Gab's involvement in the storming of the US capitol should be mentioned in the lede, as it takes up a significant amount of the article. If we are to add the info to the lede, how should we phrase it? X-Editor (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe just a sentence along the lines of what's used to begin the "Storming" section? Gab was among the platforms used to plan the storming of the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Sounds good! But how would you phrase the lede sentence vs. the sentence already in the article? X-Editor (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Personally I think using the same wording in both places is fine, though if you think that's too redundant we can figure out some adjustments. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: I guess the wording is fine, but maybe we could add that it prompted the adl to call for Gab to be investigated as well? X-Editor (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@X-Editor: There's currently only one secondary source for that, so unless there's more sourcing to show it's so WEIGHTy it ought to go in the lead I'd be inclined to leave it out, at least until such an investigation actually happens. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense, I'll add the storming sentence to the article. X-Editor (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Torba engaging with anti-semites

Should this be added to the article, and should it be under the userbase section? https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/03/andrew-torba-anti-semites/ X-Editor (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@X-Editor: Gab (social network)#By Gab GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Oh nice. You already added it. X-Editor (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Mother Jones is deemed by WP:RSPSRC as a reliable but biased source, and the addition at least provides some additional justification for that silly "antisemitism" sidebar, which I still feel is on shaky ground by giving the topic of antisemitism undue prominence. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

Consider tone of the opening sentences:

"Gab is an American alt-tech social networking service known by whom? what does "known" mean? for its far-right userbase.[8] Widely described by whom? as a haven for extremists what does "extremist" mean in this context? It's a subjective, pejorative term including neo-Nazis, white supremacists, white nationalists, the alt-right, and QAnon conspiracy theorists another perjorative term, it has attracted users and groups who have been banned from other social media and users seeking alternatives to mainstream social media platforms this is factually true but why is it presented as the most significant fact about Gab? What tone is being created here?.[22] Gab says it promotes free speech, individual liberty, and "the free flow of information online", though these statements have been criticized by whom? as being a shield for its alt-right and extremist ecosystem what does that mean?.[33] Researchers note that Gab has been "repeatedly linked to radicalization leading to real-world violent events" Which researchers? Linked in what manner?.

Now consider the opening paragraph on Hitler:

"Adolf Hitler (German: [ˈadɔlf ˈhɪtlɐ] (About this soundlisten); 20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945) was an Austrian-born German politician who was the dictator of Germany from 1933 to 1945. He rose to power as the leader of the Nazi Party,[a] becoming Chancellor in 1933 and then assuming the title of Führer und Reichskanzler in 1934.[b] During his dictatorship from 1933 to 1945, he initiated World War II in Europe by invading Poland on 1 September 1939. He was closely involved in military operations throughout the war and was central to the perpetration of the Holocaust, the genocide of about 6 million Jews and millions of other victims."

This contains no partially-attributed allegations, no moral judgements, no pejoratives, and no vague language hiding personal opinions. Why is the neutral POV so much better adhered to there? The article on Gab needs a pretty comprehensive overhaul. Presently it is a list of allegations, not an encyclopaedic entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacobW982 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Widely described has four sources alone, that is without all of the other sources through the article. As to Mr Hitler, it is a different article (about a different type of topic).Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@JacobW982: Most of my answers here can be summarized by "we write what is reported in reliable sources". However, to reply to your bolded statements in order:

• "by whom? what does "known" mean?": The majority of reliable sources introduce and discuss Gab in the context of its extremist userbase, which establishes that it is "known" for this characteristic. At present there are 224 sources in this article, and answering the "by whom" question in-text when so many sources support it would not be practical or particularly informative.
• "by whom?" I will make the inline cite a little more clear for this bit, as I see it is now supporting a longer sentence. (Done—I've split out the "haven for extremists" cites from the "attracts banned users" cites).
• "what does "extremist" mean in this context? It's a subjective, pejorative term" Extremism (and more specifically, far-right politics) is pretty clear, I think, and we list a handful of such groups (neo-Nazis, white supremacists, etc.) directly after. Do you have a term that you believe is less "pejorative"? I think we are using the most neutral term available, and it is well-supported by many RS.
• "another pejorative term" Again, what is your suggestion for a less pejorative term for one who spreads conspiracy theories? Please note that we do not omit well-sourced, properly weighted information just because it is negative.
• "this is factually true but why is it presented as the most significant fact about Gab? What tone is being created here?" Again, this is an extremely widely-described fact about Gab, and so is included for that reason. I'll note that Gab themselves touts that they are an alternative to mainstream platforms, and that they are an option for users banned from said platforms, so I'm surprised this is objectionable.
• "by whom?" See the citations at the end of the sentence. Again, this is supported by multiple sources and so does not make sense to attribute in text. There was some broken syntax in the ref, so apologies if that was confusing—I've fixed it.
• "what does that mean?" This is addressed in-text (ctrl-F "shield"). If you have ideas for clarifying the wording I'd be happy to hear them. Basically it means that their positioning of themselves as a "free speech platform"/protectors of free speech/etc. has been used to deflect from the fact that they have welcomed far-right users/content. If you see the last sentence in the lead of alt-tech you will see this is a pretty common feature in alt-tech platforms.
• "Which researchers? Linked in what manner?" Manoel Horta Ribeiro, Jeremy Blackburn, Barry Bradlyn, Emiliano De Cristofaro, Gianluca Stringhini, Summer Long, Stephanie Greenberg, Savvas Zannettou. You can imagine why we're not listing all of them by name. The article is freely available so feel free to read it for more details, though they are summarizing other research when they write: "Online platforms are increasingly exploited to spread hate, extremist ideologies, and weaponized information, and have been repeatedly linked to radicalization leading to real-world violent events [1,27]. Seemingly niche communities are often involved in such activities; for instance, Gab, 8chan, and 4chan have all played a role in the apparent radicalization of individuals that went on to alleged murderous actions [2, 9, 16]."

Hope this helps. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Welcomed, they have practically used it as a marketing tool. "come here if you are too extreme for Twitter".Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I find it daunting that no reliable source considers gab admirable for hosting lawful but controversial speech. We don't attack criminal defense attorney's for defending even craven alleged criminals. We recognize that; where there is a right, there must be those willing to stand in defense of those rights - otherwise it isn't much of a right. "Reliable sources" are an echo chamber on this issue. Torba is a religious extremist, but there is nothing anti-semitic or racist about Gab policyTuffStuffMcG (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

TuffStuffMcG, The reason you don't find any reliable sources that find gab "admirable" is because no one with any level of critical thinking actually believes that Gab is about free speech. It is demonstrably a mechanism for hate speech, not free speech. It's not admirable at all; quite the opposite.

Your comparison to the process of a defense attorney doesn't fly. Defense attorneys work to uphold the law as provided in the constitution (there is a constitutional duty to provide a defense); Gab is not a government agent and cannot, in any way, "defend or protect" freedom of speech, no matter how much they claim otherwise.

I wonder, given your single-minded attempts to whitewash deplorable things, if you have the competency to even be productive here. I don't think you like editing here; you don't seem to care about consensus or reliable sources. What is your goal? Jorm (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I am interested in ensuring that wikipedia's community standards are maintained, because I trust it as a source of information. I want it to continue to grow as a fountain of combined human knowledge, without vitriol or undue bias poisoning the well due to contemporary concerns.

Figuratively related; Many of the puritanical Christians who founded the NE colonies were not interested in Religious tolerance technically; being more interested in establishing a moralistic theocracy in the New World of their own. Their own experience with State intolerance, and the concerns of other purged denominations, led to a more live-and-let-live community over time. I see these fringe communities in a similar light, and think that the purges have had an enlightening effect.

In any case, my reply wasn't filled with seething personal animus, and I'd ask that you refrain from the same.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

In the interest of following community standards, please observe NOTFORUM. Since I assume you are not suggesting we make changes based on your own opinions about Gab, which you have stated are not reflected by RS, there is nothing actionable in your comment. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Will do, I apologize for the non-actionable opinion expressed and recognize this is not a forumTuffStuffMcG (talk) 23:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument in this case, as there is a huge difference between a dictator vs. a social network. X-Editor (talk) 03:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Well this article definately isn't showing a Neutral Point of View - case in point, almost all the "sources" are centre-left to left-wing to far-left wing media outlets. The only "Neutral" or centre-right or right-wing or far-right sources I could find were in the following order: US Government, Fox News, Fox Business, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, Axios, Reason (magazine), The Spectator, just to name a few - I can't say anything about the jewish or israli news outlets because I know nothing of them but if your going to have this article be viewed from an NPOV then at least put in some counter arguments to all the left-wing outlets and put in the view points of some right-wing and/or centrist outlets so that people can see both sides (of views) when it comes to gab, a controversial social media platform that is hated by the left for supporting free-speech and also hated by a small minority of the right who dislike Andrew Torba's evangelical viewpoints and his banning of lolicon (these people migrated to minds. 94.1.122.40 (talk) 12:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, if you have anything to add to the article based off of these reliable center/right-wing sources, go ahead! What's not going to happen is to ignore reliable sources that are already in the article though. Mvbaron (talk) 13:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I think 94.* was listing the center to right publications that are already used in this article. It's a bit amusing to claim that this article isn't showing NPOV because "almost all" the sources are leftist, but then list a whole slew of center to right sources used in this article. But yes, 94.*, as Mvbaron said, if you have reliable sources that you feel offer a different perspective, feel free to suggest them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you wound care to provide some RS making counter-arguments?16:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• [1] "an emerging free-speech juggernaut in the tech space", "self sufficiency, anti-fragility and robustness for Gab that few, if any, non-Globalist sites can match."
• [2] "governor of Texas Greg Abbott falsely claimed that free speech social media website Gab is "an anti-semitic platform""
• [3] "we find that 5.4% of all Gab posts include a hate word. In comparison, Gab has 2.4 times the rate of hate words when compared to Twitter, but less than halve the rate of hate words compared to 4chan’s Politically Incorrect board (/pol/) [9]. These findings indicate that Gab resides on the border of mainstream social networks like Twitter and fringe Web communities like 4chan’s Politically Incorrect (/pol/) board." Comment: hate speech is certainly on this site, evidently more than on other sites such as Twitter, but this doesn't meet the narrative that "Antisemitism is prominent". Reading the antisemitism section in the article makes me disgusted (celebrating massacres etc.), but this appears to be a small minority on the site ("We showed that Gab is extensively used for the discussion of news, world events, and politics-related topics,). Just as you could find anti-semites and others similar on Gab, you can find hate speech and porn on Twitter [4], [5], [6] but I don't see this mentioned in the second sentence of Twitter, never mind the lede.

Please don't take this the wrong way, I am by no means trying to defend the site or pretend that this isn't some deplorable stuff on there, but I don't think this article is NPOV and the sources on the article almost all put Gab in bad light, especially when there is evidence to say that Gab is a Conservative site and not just a pile of extremism [7], [8]. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

you will need to petition for Revolver and National File to be added as green/reliable to the perrenially reliable sources list.

Since that list recognizes Mother Jones, Slate, People, The Daily Beast, and Buzzfeed political editorial as reliable - while National Review, Fox News, Forbes political articles are excluded.... Your chances of that happening are approximately 0%. Best bet is to find a Reason.com article, but if one were to come out admiring Gab or Parler for their efforts to preserve speech, we can expect that the reason URL would turn red/unreliable in the perrenial sources list. That's how it works. If you don't like it, create your own open source font of human knowledgeTuffStuffMcG (talk) 13:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)