Talk:Gab (social network)

Transphobic comments

Bringing this here for discussion. Previously, this page said "[Gab's CEO] also used a transphobic slur to insult the hackers 'attacking' Gab." This was later expanded to "[Gab's CEO] also used a transphobic slur to insult the hackers 'attacking' Gab, calling them 'mentally ill tranny demon hackers'." I removed this with the summary "we shouldn't gratuitously reprint transphobic slurs", but I see X-Editor has restored it with the summary "WP is not censored". While I agree with WP:NOTCENSORED, in my view this quote provides no additional encyclopedic value (at least that couldn't be accomplished by mentioning that Torba also described them as "mentally ill" and "demon hackers") and is therefore both unnecessary and gratuitous. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Concur. Removing.--Jorm (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Fine. X-Editor (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

No critical thinking human has an irrational fear of trans people. Trans people are not a disease, trans people are not the boogeyman. That's ignorance and misuse of language and a mockery of intellect to assume that all people who view transpeople differently are somehow coming from a place of irrational fear is a sign of blatant hubris. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drakengard2099 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The English suffixes -phobia, -phobic, -phobe (from Greek φόβος phobos, "fear") occur in technical usage in psychiatry to construct words that describe irrational, abnormal, unwarranted, persistent, or disabling fear as a mental disorder (e.g. agoraphobia), in chemistry to describe chemical aversions (e.g. hydrophobic), in biology to describe organisms that dislike certain conditions (e.g. acidophobia), and in medicine to describe hypersensitivity to a stimulus, usually sensory (e.g. photophobia). In common usage, they also form words that describe dislike or hatred of a particular thing or subject (e.g. homophobia). (-phobia). If some other term for hatred towards trans people enters the common vernacular, we could use it, but at the moment this is what we've got. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

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)