Talk:Gab (social network)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Total hit job on Gab with no basis in fact[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


In this sentence, it mentions Neo Nazis:

Widely described as a haven for neo-Nazis, racists, white supremacists, white nationalists, antisemites, the alt-right, supporters of Donald Trump, conservatives, right-libertarians, and believers in conspiracy theories such as QAnon,[6][7]

Ok, but look the first reference [6] - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gab-new-domain-host-epik-robert-bowers-pittsburgh-shooting/

The News article mentions nothing about Neo Nazis. It says a shooter used Gab. Shooters typically use Facebook, such as this one:

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/16/482339322/senator-says-orlando-shooter-posted-pro-isis-messages-on-facebook

Facebook was not shut down the next day. Facebook was not slandered into a 'haven for Neo Nazis' - this article is a total Troll job with pathetic references and I'm sure that if anyone tries to change the hit job, their account will be deleted. Wikipedia is not going to make it with this biased top down approach, the rules of Wiki editing are clearly not being followed on this page, and there are probably many others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Massintel (talkcontribs) 02:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC) --Massintel (talk) 02:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

but reference #7 says a haven for white nationalists, neo-Nazis and other extremists soibangla (talk) 03:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Widely Described" would mean MULTIPLE references. In the 7 "References" there is ONE reference. So it's not "Widely Described" it's "Described by one source, but other sources say differently" Do you see how this is misleading? Massintel (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The lead section of the article is just a summary. More details about neo-Nazis on Gab (and many more sources) can be found in the body of the article. MrOllie (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those references are opinions they do not show evidence of "Neo Nazis" there is no evidence because it doesn't exist. It's a false narrative. Massintel (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Prove it wrong. Show one example, not an opinion op-ed. Massintel (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We don't require reliable sources to show their evidence in turn, and I decline to go hunting for examples since per WP:NOR they wouldn't be usable for Wikipedia content. MrOllie (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also not all of our sources do seem to be opp-edds, I see at leat two from peer-reviewed academic journals and one from a newspaper not marked as an opp-edd. Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"It's just an opinion" has been a long standing tradition of Gab supporters to decry any reliable source which bothers to point out the site is full of neo-Nazis. That argument isn't going to fly here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We are doing a daily content review of Gab. We can't find any of the offensive content on the site, so the sources must be opinions even if they are stated as 'news' because they do not reference any sources. In other words, they are stating this word "Neo Nazis" but there are not "Neo Nazis" on Gab nor are there any evidence of Neo Nazi content except for World War 2 history groups which discuss actual Nazis from the period of 1930s - 1940s. This page is clearly biased against Gab and is in violation of the Wikipedia rules. The replies here have confirmed that by "Not wanting to get into the details" isn't that the first defense of a ponzi scammer when you ask for evidence their investment is not a fraud? Deflect, confuse, deny, .. Definitely not good for Wikipedia. Massintel (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or you are not seeing it, or you define it in a way no one else does or...but I could go on. Read wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Who is the 'we' doing a daily content review? That sounds like an exercise in original research, which carries no weight here, but it would be interesting to know whether you represent an organisation of some sort. If you want to affect any change here, I would advise you to be specific about which 'Wikipedia rules' you believe are being violated, and you are going to have to argue your case based on those rules, and the content of reliable secondary sources. Unsupported assertions that pages are 'obviously biased' are very common, but never effective. Girth Summit (blether) 15:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the sources must be opinions even if they are stated as 'news' because they do not reference any sources
That's... not how investigative journalism works. You don't get to substitute your assumptions for what reliable sources have said, nor can you perform your own analysis to determine the RS are wrong.
As a point of order, NPOV does not forbid Wikipedians from having an opinion on a subject. You grossly misunderstand that rule if you're going to try and pull that argument here. And I don't know where you pulled "Not wanting to get into the details from," as that never came up in this discussion.
The remainder of your post is very close to violating WP:NPA, so I suggest you move on to another topic. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then you aren't looking very hard. Within 2 seconds of scrolling the front page of this website there's blatant antisemitism (including holocaust denial), various instances of racism using slurs I wont repeat here and a post that reads "Shift the Overton Window so far Right that it never moves again. 卐".
The descriptors used by Wikipedia are more than apt.
</OR> Dricoust (talk) 10:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.