My God, I read the wikipedia to learn about it, and I cannot imagine a less balanced and larger smear campaign possible. Every single paragraph is full of attempts to discredit it. Free speech is definitely under attack, and every attempt to discredit platforms that allow it will be made through guilt by association, name calling, etc.
My God, I read the [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_(social_network)) to learn about it, and I cannot imagine a less balanced and larger smear campaign possible. Every single paragraph is full of attempts to discredit it. Free speech is definitely under attack, and every attempt to discredit platforms that allow it will be made through guilt by association, name calling, etc.
Yeah, they started banning some of the more controversial people to clean up their image. But in doing so they just emboldened the enemies of free speech.
Yeah, they started banning some of the more controversial people to clean up their image. But in doing so they just emboldened the enemies of free speech.
I could have sworn Wikipedia is meant to have articles from a neutral perspective. Perhaps the definition of neutral changed? Or perhaps neutrality is only for approved topics now?
I could have sworn Wikipedia is meant to have articles from a neutral perspective. Perhaps the definition of neutral changed? Or perhaps neutrality is only for approved topics now?
I thought Gab was now censoring controversial people.