Weeks After Blasting Twitter For 'Strangling Free Expression' GETTR Bans The Term 'Groyper' In Effort To Stop White Nationalist Spam
from the content-moderation-speed-run dept
It's always fun to watch each new entrant into the social media market that rushes in claiming that it is the "true" supporter of "free speech" learn about the necessity of some level of content moderation. We watched it happen with Parler, the site set up by Trump benefactor Rebekah Mercer. And now we're watching it happen with former Trump spokesperson Jason Miller -- who is so supportive of "free speech" that he once sued a news org for reporting on something he didn't want public (he lost badly and was told to pay legal fees). GETTR has already had some fun learning that content moderation is necessary (and not a necessary "evil" -- just necessary). But now it's gone up a level.
Of course, it was just a month ago that Miller was running his mouth, attacking Twitter and claiming that Jack Dorsey was "strangling free expression" at Twitter and "censoring opinions he doesn't like."
So it seems noteworthy that just a few weeks later, it's Miller who is... doing the same thing. Specifically, GETTR banned Nick Fuentes, a pathetic wannabe neo-Nazi, who seems to spend all of his time just trying to troll people into being mad about what a sad little white nationalist he is. GETTR claimed that Fuentes violated its terms of service which, um, is the same thing that Twitter does when it bans people because that's how it works.
But then GETTR went even further -- including much further than anything I've seen Twitter ever do. It started banning a word associated with Fuentes and his followers: "groyper." It's not worth getting into the history of groyper, but suffice it to say, it started as an alternative to the old alt-right co-opting of the Pepe the frog cartoon, and then just became a truly pathetic chant that Fuentes' followers chant as a sort of talisman to make sure they ward off anyone with more than a dozen brain cells. Anyway, Fuentes' little band of misfit children started filling up GETTR with "groyper spam" to protest the ban of Fuentes, and so Miller and GETTR just... decide to ban the word "groyper" from the site entirely. As the Daily Beast discovered, it's just not allowed at all.
Say what you want about Twitter "strangling free expression" but I don't recall the company ever blocking your ability to post a single word in an effort to stop a bunch of sad edgelord teenagers from overflowing the site with protest spam. And, of course, as anyone with more than a little bit of experience in the content moderation space knows, doing simple word filter bans is not just silly, but also totally ineffective, as Arizona's dumber-than-you-can-believe State Senator Wendy Rogers highlighted with the addition of a few "o's":
The key point here is that every website needs some level of content moderation or it becomes a total and complete cesspool that is basically unusable. Every website realizes that eventually. The idea that GETTR is any more "supportive of free speech" is nonsense. It just has a different set of rules that it will enforce somewhat arbitrarily, and it will make mistakes just as Twitter, Facebook, and other sites make mistakes. Of course, as a marketing tool, GETTR will continue to lie and claim that it is somehow uniquely more supportive of free speech, when that's all a bunch of nonsense.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: content moderation, groyper, jason miller, nick fuentes
Companies: gettr, twitter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It's incorrect to claim that all social media platforms require "some level of moderation". Certainly true for those that are created in response to existing moderation policies, and those that are created in highly political arenas... but historically untrue for many more.
For the longest time, reddit, as just one example, was almost entirely free of moderation. And by "longest time" I describe a period that last years and not weeks or months.
The trick is for the community to start out small, and to be apolitical (which brings in the the largest fraction of the whackadoodles). If these conditions are met, moderation is practically unheard of. Slashdot, kuro5hin, and a half-dozen others all met these conditions for quite a long time.
I'd go even farther than that though. I think the temptation to moderate grows with the size of the userbase, but what if that temptation wasn't possible to satisfy? If some technical constraint made it impossible to moderate at the system level (users of course, can modify and hide anything that appears on their screen, and that can't be stopped) and if those same technical constraints made it impossible for authorities to effectively block (without going the Great Firewall of China route)?
Assuming that this platform wasn't inundated with Trumpsters and other jackasses quickly and that it could grow organically, it's initial culture might be rather benign.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Even Reddit was moderated. Otherwise, it would fill up with Child Pornography and copyright infringement and things that would hold it liable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes and no. Most of what is referred to as "moderation" on Reddit is not what most people usually think of when discussing content moderation. Stuff like removing duplicate threads or "low-quality" posts. What we usually think of as moderation would be Reddit staff ("admins") banning subreddits and/or users for violating the Content Policy, and Reddit was indeed relatively moderation-free in that regard. In the past Reddit didn't even have a content policy, and (IIRC) a staff member actually once said something to the effect of "we would be doing something very wrong if we ever have to cite the TOS as a justification for an action). Of course, this was something like 10 years ago, and Reddit had around 30-50 employees. There are many subreddits from that time that would not be allowed to exist today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's my understanding that every sub-reddit has moderators who moderate that specific sub-reddit. I'm not an expert on reddit, but hasn't that been the case since the beginning? And my understanding is that sub-reddit moderators can ban users from sub-reddits rather than the site as a whole, but that's still performing moderation.
So while admin level people don't do much moderating in sub-reddits, there is a lot of moderation happening. So most moderation is outsourced to the community, which results in some sub-reddits being shitholes full of trolls, while other communities are kept calm and on topic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Every sub has moderators. Reddit is and has always been heavily moderated, partially because a) it has no choice for reason mentioned above, and b) there's no such thing as an unmoderated sub.
You can pretend all you want, but even the now-banned subs like TD, /r/incels, and FPH (basically all the same user base) were heavily moderated. It was always this way.
/user of reddit for 10+ years
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There is just no way Reddit was unmoderated for years.
It was a Digg clone when it began and launched with a lot of those lessons learned. It launched well into a mature internet ecosystem with strong examples of content moderation tools. Especially comment moderation.
I have never once encountered a community that was unmoderated or “practically unmoderated”. Even BBSs had moderation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As far back as the early 90s every BBS network out there that was larger than 1 node was moderated. All of Usenet was moderated, even the "unmoderated" alt.* hierarchy (albeit the moderation was unofficial). One thing we learned early is that no matter how careful you are about the initial membership, there's always That One Guy. And sooner or later he invites all his friends over to play. You either plan to deal with it, or you'll be dealing with it without a plan.
I wish we had the equivalent of ByteBrothers to send the trolls to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Hmmm. I'm pretty sure That One Guy is better behaved than That One Guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "That One Guy"
Or did you mean That Ooooooone Guy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well this is awkward...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Only if you are That One Guy, emphasis in context matters...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nah, when I'm an ass to people I try to limit it to those that have shown they deserve it, and why bring in others when you can have all the fun yourself?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Reddit has had subreddit mods for at least decade, if not since launch. Reddit didn't have much of a mod team itself for a long time. Because users were volunteers moderating only the subreddits they choose to help mod, and whose community accepts them back. This is how fan forums have long moderated and how discord moderates today. Rather than focus moderation on Top-down effeorts, they allow communities to moderate themselves. Discord or Reddit mods should only step in when the community has failed to or refused to moderate responsibly.
Your suggestions are remarkably similar to those put forward by Mike in the protocols not platforms policy. I mean, everything is pollical so having an apolitical space is impossible. Just because it doesn't intersect with your politics, doesn't mean it isn't politics. As well, just because moderation didn't happen, doesn't mean you don't need moderation. If you have rules like no CSAM, you need someone empowered to enforce the rule, or the rule will eventually be broken. And you hit the nail on the head - the more users the sooner someone will break those rules "for a joke". And if you don't deal with it, you get the nazi bar problem.
But you idea for a user moderated experience is definitely something Techdirt has advocated before. Techdirt typically advocates a protocol, where a user can choose which app to view the datastream, choose to employ pre-built filtering schemes or build their own, and has better control of their data. They could have choice as to which algorithms to use to view the data stream. The issue you will continue to face is that of CSAM. Inserting that into the datastream creates a whole lot of unwitting criminals, and by the time anything can be done to hide it by the user, the criminal damage is done.
Removing CSAM from the datastream would be critical, and I have to assume the reason you advocate that no one could remove any information from the datastream is so they can't delete the CSAM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Even smaller communities need some form of moderation.
Things like basic courtesy, not being an asshat, and, I dunno, NOT BREAKING THE LAW come into mind.
I'd also like to remind people that 4chan DOES have moderation, even if the mods do nothing and are only there to ensure that the FBI doesn't pay another visit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"It's incorrect to claim that all social media platforms require "some level of moderation"."
No, it really isn't. Every social media platform without a filter will eventually attract the very worst people - upon which time either filters will be introduced or everyone but the very worst people will leave. This is as true in any social setting both in real life and online.
"For the longest time, reddit, as just one example, was almost entirely free of moderation. And by "longest time" I describe a period that last years and not weeks or months."
It really never was. Reddit has always been quite heavily moderated. A very few short-lived sub-reddits haven't been...which is why they were short-lived.
Anyone claiming otherwise doesn't grok at which time the narwhal bacons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"It's incorrect to claim that all social media platforms require "some level of moderation"."
It's not if you take any notice of what happens with the platforms that don't have it. Hint: 8kun/8chan existed because some people found even 4chan to be too oppressive.
Most people would rather their social media not be 8chan as a matter of course, and most would prefer way more moderation.
"For the longest time, reddit, as just one example, was almost entirely free of moderation."
No, it wasn't. They generally left moderation up to the people who ran the subreddits, but it was definitely there.
"The trick is for the community to start out small, and to be apolitical"
OK. How do you enforce that without moderation?
"Assuming that this platform wasn't inundated with Trumpsters and other jackasses quickly and that it could grow organically"
Therein lies the issue. Those people will gravitate toward popular platforms, and they will be there eventually. Whatever the original conversation was about, they'll disrupt it with political talk and/or outright hate speech. What do you do about that without moderation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Idea for GETTR
Why not make a word filter a la 4chan and whenever someone writes "Groyper" it shows up with something like "[word redacted]"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Idea for GETTR
4chan also knows how to evade the wordfilter.
It's just more hilarious to be filtered sometimes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Idea for GETTR
Because that would just encourage them to play "hilarious" games where they signal what they're really saying to everyone reading it and not actually remove the problem. Not that this solution removes it either, but letting them dogwhistle more than they already do probably won't help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wendy Rogers using a G.I.Joe character for her icon is just perfect. A cartoon character who’s entire purpose is to fight imaginary villains instead of actually helping people she is responsible for.
This is a dangerous game for Miller. He must know a majority of the remaining users are white nationalists. Especially when the rest of the MAGA heads move to Trumps new service for the 60 days he actually uses it before dumping it like Gingrich and a sick wife. Miler’s service will be like a ghost town next year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'How dare you act like us in our house?!'
Parler/GETTR: 'How dare that other homeowner try to kick people out of their house just for taking a dump in the middle of a crowded room, don't they know people have a right to act horribly in property that's not theirs?! They can say what they want about 'proper behavior' and 'acceptable forms of discussion' but everyone knows that sort of response from the homeowner is nothing less than tyrannical censorship and the proper response is for the snowflakes in the house to just suck it up and grow thicker skin!'
Amused observers: 'Someone just took a dump in the middle of your living-room.'
Parler/GETTR: 'Get those people out of here, how dare they violate the rules of acceptable behavior I set out for my guests?! When we set rules we expect our visitors to adhere to those and if they can't then they are out the door and have no-one to blame but themselves!'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They did suspend people for saying, "Learn to Code" to writers who lost their jobs. Not a 'single word' but still blocking something asinine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Refreshing Honesty
Banning groyper support is actually far more OBJECTIVE than anything other social media platforms are willing to admit. Fb and Twitter management hate conservatives, which is their right to hold that opinion, but they operate to outlaw conservative speech on the platforms covertly, using arbitrary rules. Kudos to Gettr for being up front and forthcoming. I've been saying that social media companies should just come out and say what they want, and now we're seeing it happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Oh, you know the ones...'
Fb and Twitter management hate conservatives, which is their right to hold that opinion, but they operate to outlaw conservative speech on the platforms covertly, using arbitrary rules
Which 'conservative speech' is being banned again and as always be specific.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Oh, you know the ones...'
Every time someone asks Koby that questions, he suddenly becomes a 12 o'clock flasher...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Oh, you know the ones...'
Oooh let me guess. Maybe the racism, or denying the holocaust, or spreading medical misinformation, or grifting, or the glorification of violence in service of their political aims?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'Oh, you know the ones...'
Texas republicans certainly made clear that they believe all of those are 'conservative values/speech' but strangely enough Koby never seems to be able to follow suit and explain what they mean when they talk about 'conservative speech' whenever asked. Can't imagine why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Koby is an intentionally obtuse right-wing troll who definitely understands Section 230 and the First Amendment (even when he acts like he doesn’t), but he isn’t stupid. He knows the answer to that one question; he won’t say it out loud because that would be giving away the game…and tying himself to an answer he doesn’t want to own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sometimes silence is an answer itself
Unfortunately for him his very notable silence every time the question is asked provides his answer loud and clear to everyone watching regardless.
[Citation Needed]: Not just a great way to shut certain people up but also an easy way to provide the answers they don't want to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Koby is an intentionally obtuse right-wing troll who definitely understands Section 230 and the First Amendment (even when he acts like he doesn’t), but he isn’t stupid."
I beg to differ. Anyone who isn't a complete moron would have realized long ago that the only thing repeating alt-right talking points gets him on this web site is a dozen people pointing out his fallacies on every thread he deigns to visit with that bullshit.
I.e. the only thing he accomplishes here is to keep raising general awareness that the alt-right is full of shit and that nazis, klansmen and bigots self-identify as "conservatives" these days.
So yeah, he's stupid. Not only is he not convincing anyone, he actively harms the cause he's working for by his clumsy propaganda backfiring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm still convinced he has a public humiliation fetish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"I'm still convinced he has a public humiliation fetish."
...that's Baghdad Bob. You know, the one with the unique knack of making three obviously false statements in two lines or less? And the inevitable accusation most often turning out to be the fault of his own side?
No, Koby has made it very clear his only interest around here is to make someone - anyone - believe that a debate around tax rates or size of government should be considered just as valid as an argument about whether <N-word> are worse than the horde of Mexican Rapists storming the Texas border or about how you can flavor your Ivermectin to get rid of the horrible aftertaste.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'Oh, you know the ones...'
My recollection is that Koby started whining here around the same time that several prominent white supremacists got kicked off social media for being far too open about their views. He's never provided real examples of who was affected AFAIK (or at least none that can't be confirmed as being kicked out for something other than being "conservatives"), but the correlation was pretty obvious.
For now, he mainly acts as a sounding board for people to debunk whatever nonsense he's trying to say before any casual reader is fooled into believing him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Refreshing Honesty
I don't believe you. Change my mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Refreshing Honesty
Fb and Twitter management love conservatives. It's the rank-and file employees that "hate" conservatives (assuming we can call it that), and even that is largely because of the culture that arises from being based in California.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Refreshing Honesty
I'm sorry to inform you that verifiable evidence really isn't his strong suit...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Refreshing Honesty
Blah blah blah, blah blah, blah blah blah blah... blah blah... pass the vodka.
That is seriously what you sound like.
Also, you are probably one of those kids whose parents thought it was the teachers fault when you received poor grades in school. The point being, you were never taught personal responsibility and consequences.
You constantly talk about some kind of social media "war" on conservatives based on their viewpoint without ever considering the actions that led up to someone being banned and that it could be the result of said "conservative" doing / saying something so horrible that they get the boot. In your mind, "conservatives" can do nothing wrong, and it's everybody else's fault that they are being kicked off social media.
And when you portray somebody like Fuentes as a "conservative" who is banned from social media because of his "conservative" viewpoints, then just admit that you are a racist human being who is wholly aligned with the nazi mentality, as it appears you seem to think that is a normal "conservative" viewpoint that keeps being banned from social media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Refreshing Honesty
But what about the freedom to use the word groyper, Koby? Do you really want to live in a country where that word will get you banned from GETTR? Where are those poor, oppressed millions supposed to go? It's cancel culture run amok!
With GETTR being the functional equivalent of a public square, why are they infringing on our public right to speak freely? We have a right to speak on GETTR, just like your right to speak on Facebook & Twitter, goddammit!
And what are YOU doing Koby, defending them? Did your forefathers fight for your freedom to be repressed on GETTR? First they came for the groyper, and you didn't care because it wasn't Facebook or Twitter. I thought I could count on you, but here we are, with you nearly breaking your back trying to bend over and accommodate what is clearly a violation of free speech. It's a slippery slope they're on for sure. Today it's groyper. Tomorrow it's 'white power.' The day after that, it's 'jews will not replace us.' Where does it end Koby?
For shame, Koby. For shame. You better straighten yourself the fuck out before people here start thinking you're some kind of hypocrite, or something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Refreshing Honesty
So it's ok if you upfront state that you are going to outlaw some conservative viewpoints, like those of Fuentes and people who want to shout "groyper"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Refreshing Honesty
I don’t think you know what “objective” means.
[citation needed]
As well as to express it and to moderate both their own and third-party content on their own platforms based on that (alleged) opinion.
Again, [citation needed]
Also, which “conservative speech”, exactly?
Every platform has arbitrary rules, including Gettr. Banning “groyper”, while understandable under the circumstances, was still based on arbitrary rule.
Actually, I don’t see how Gettr is being upfront or forthcoming, at least compared to Facebook or Twitter. Their message about banning Fuentes reads, in its entirety, as follows:
That’s not being “upfront” or “forthcoming”, and it’s also not much different from the reasons given by many platforms for moderations decisions. It’s incredibly vague, actually.
And the banning of the word “groyper” was never announced by Gettr, nor have they actually explained or even directly acknowledged that ban as far as I can tell.
Now, I am not criticizing (or condoning) their decisions in these cases; just noting that you’re not accurately describing them and giving Gettr too much credit here.
I don’t disagree with that, though I will note that, to some extent, they already are, and to the extent they are not doing so, it’s no worse than Gettr.
Again, I’m not seeing whatever it is you’re seeing here. Gettr is being at least as opaque as and no more upfront than any major social media platform.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Refreshing Honesty
[Hallucinates facts contrary to reality]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Refreshing Honesty
Facebook and Twitter Management hate conservatives so much that Zuckerberg held off the record meetings with the Trump Whitehouse and Trump megadonor Peter Thiel is a board member. Facebook management hate Conservatives so much Joel Kaplan helped to steal the 2000 election for Bush, appeared in public to support Bret Kavanaugh at his confirmation hearings, associated with Roger Stone. served in the Bush administration and is actively working to both damage left wing news providers and block any attempt to lessen the damage Facebook is causing. Twitter management hated conservatives so much they gave Trump free reign to say whatever he liked no matter what rules he violated, letting him rile up mobs and rule by tweet using their platform and only acting when his supporters attacked the capitol and they were left with no choice but to act.
Conservatives could turn social media into conservative dominated AM talk radio (Facebook is already most of the way there) and they would still cry about being silenced because the left haven't been silenced entirely. You don't want fairness from any platform. you want everyone to shut up and say nothing as you toss around lies, slurs and conspiracies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Refreshing HonestySO it's ok when YOUR people d oit eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Refreshing Honesty don't come from you honey
Funny how it's not censorship if you like it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Refreshing Honesty
"...but they operate to outlaw conservative speech on the platforms..."
If you insist on calling racism, bigotry, medical misinformation and such conservative speech then I'm afraid I have to tell you, once again, that the response will not be sympathy but "About damn time!".
You people had your shot, Koby at telling the neo-nazis, confederate holdovers and proud chauvinists to get the fsck out of dodge. You had any amount of chances to step away.
But no. You guys have insisted on embracing every last vestige of old southern-style racism while clinging to your right to use the N-word in discourse on other people's property with a white-knuckled grip.
And that just means that today you've managed to turn "conservative values" in US politics into confused nationalist fascism. Something which if not outlawed should at least be run out of town and barred entry by every business owner in america.
There is no room in civilized society for you and your kind, Koby. So do us all the immense favor and GET LOST!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Refreshing Honesty
What's funny is that it's already verified that FB heavily favour right-wingers, you're just too dumb to realise that you're already being given special treatment because your klan buddies keep overstepping the line to the point where they're forced to keep the people who actually pay them happy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why groyper? are they trying to secretly boast they molest each other when they meet up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
By the pussy, probably.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Remember Pepe the frog? Apparently, Groyper is another character in that same vein, only a fat toad rather than a (relatively) thin frog. The name may or may not come from the username of one of, if not the, earliest known posters of an illustration of him, a 4chan user named “Big Dog Groyper”. (This was in early 2015.) No one knows why that name was used, but that’s as far as I can tell for the origin.
Though, I will note that one username for someone on Twitter is, in fact, “Groyper by the P¥$$y”, so you may not be that far off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moderation is necessary because otherwise the the service
will be overrun with trolls, edgeLords, spam. People posting qanon bullshit, conspiracy theory's , antivaxxers etc. Maybe some apps can limit moderation, by asking users by going invite only or asking for subscriptions to join up . There's plenty of Conservatives on twitter. Conservatives love to complain about censorship when people are blocked for posting racist hate speech or posting fake news that is obviously wrong or posting antivax Bs eg covid is just like the flu .
Even Conservatives won't use a forum that's full of trolls and spam if you are an edgelord just go to 4chan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No child pornography, no under-18s, no raids on other websites, and no posting about My Little Pony outside /mlp/.
Even 4chan's moderated to some extent, and boards other than /b/ all have their own rules on top of those too.
NB: The list may be out of date, but the last time I was there, those were in effect site-wide, and breaking them would get you permanently IP-banned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And the cross board raids still happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"There's plenty of Conservatives on twitter"
It's possible to be a conservative and not be a hateful moron, or at least. not be obnoxiously open about it. Some of them haven't worked that out, though.
"Even Conservatives won't use a forum that's full of trolls and spam if you are an edgelord just go to 4chan"
Then that was too restrictive for some people so they set up 8chan, and... well, that didn't work out well for anyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There are degrees of content moderation that are necessary. But beyond that there is a whole world of discretion left to support free speech or not.
I don't know if Getter specifically is any more supportive of free speech than others since I've never been there, but it's certainly possible to be so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Private companies don't have to "support" free speech.
They can use their own free speech rights to determine exactly with whom they want to be associated.
If I created a social media service that caters to nobody but squat cobblers, then I am using my own 1st amendment rights of association to ban / censor anybody I want who isn't a squat cobbler.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaQ-s_P5mwM&t=197s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think that's what "discretion" means. That said, if a company claims to "support free speech", I think it's fair to evaluate whether that is indeed true or not. Like you said, they don't have to support free speech, so if they don't, I would prefer them to be honest about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No platform can fully support “free speech”. The issue of illegal speech (e.g., CSAM) aside, platforms will almost always moderate spam off the platform, and spam is protected speech. A platform that truly supports “free speech” would never moderate spam…even if it cost said platform a significant chunk of its userbase.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The issue is not that Gettr made a good call to moderate, or even that they choose to moderate at all. Gettr can make these decisions. It is that GETTR has argued that twitter can't make these decisions, and that GETTR wouldn't ban 1st amendment protected speech because sites like GETTR and Twitter can't make these kinds of decisions. Right up until they realize that the KKK loves finding new websites where they can openly discuss the failings of the negroid race and (((others))) and that hey, maybe some of those neo-nazis twitter didn't like were actually neo-nazis. Then without acknowlegeing all the bluster about supporting the first amendment and not censoring legal content, they start engaging in what they call censorship when twitter does it.
It is a conflict of what they preach and what they do. That is called hypocrisy. It doesn't matter if GETTR could by some metric be considered to be more supportive of the first amendment. They violated their stated principles re: moderation and the first amendment. That's the issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"But beyond that there is a whole world of discretion left to support free speech or not."
Define "free speech". Despite what some people want to believe, it doesn't mean from from response or consequence for other private individuals. If you disagree with the rules of the community you joined, you're free to go elsewhere, as other are to respond to you. If you then find that most people don't want you in their community, the issue might not be "censorship".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gettr, like most conservative platforms eventually do, realised that if you have people like Fuentes and his followers on your platform, running around completely mask off, it scares away the normies. As the various .win banned subreddit clones, Parler and other right wing sites have discovered, you struggle to maintain traffic without an audience to either troll or recruit, and you end up with a few dozen people talking to themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There’s a name for that, by the by: the “Worst People” Problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It sounds like its a good corollary to the nazi bar problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"it scares away the normies"
That's not even the main problem, it's that they scare off advertisers. If anything's more deadly to them than having the idiots posting, it's losing the people who actually pay them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unusuale Trash and Spam
I tried to use Gettr and it was unusable garbage. Crap design that wouldn't show me I wanted to see. Its about as bad as Tumblr in it insistance on showing you things after you tell it not to.
Also got a whole bunch of scammy looking spam in my email which I haven't given to any other site. Frankly the best part of the site is that it gives you an option for deleting your account.
I couldn't give to shits about mid-wit attention whores being banned from banned from a doomed platform. Everytime anything associated with groypers has come across my radar its has been cringy and obnoxious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unusuale Trash and Spam
"Frankly the best part of the site is that it gives you an option for deleting your account"
There is something hilarious about you correctly noting all the other problems with the service, then trusting them to honour this part of the deal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]