Free speech is free (excluding internet provider bills) if you just don't use centralized platforms.
There are no any need for servers, datacenter rent, bank accounts, licenses, taxes or whatever shit imaginable to have a chat or forum or whatever in, say, rapidshare or tox or other distributed solutions. Also, there is no way for any state or corporate actor to censor anything or pressure owners, because there are no tools for censorship and no owners.
If it's a total/whole/entire lie, then there couldn't be truth...
no any need for servers
a) If thirst is needed, then does one serve that need by drinking?
b) What can you tell me about the relationship between web-servers (jews) and web-browsers (gentiles)?
Server/serve/servus - "slave".
Browse/breast/bhreus - "to swell"
other distributed solutions
Distribution (life) by solution (inception towards death)...how could there be any other?
no tools for censorship and no owners
How does one censor a fox without claiming ownership over a chicken? Does a chicken coup imply censorship...a firewall...state interference...a dead legal body (corporation) in-between the living?
If ones free will of choice is a tool/tōwalan/tol - "implement", then how could it be negated and what implemented it?
Internet was better before social media platforms existed. You would go on forums and make friends with strangers. Let the platfirms die, I say, if they can't figure out how to make a buck.
I agree. I prefer forums over social media, as well. The topics show up on search engines, so it's helps finding useful information on a subject. Can't do the same with twitter or facebook.
Reminder that gab is fully funded every month, has investors, and collects ad revenue from its site.
Also, Torba has blown away lots of money on dumb shit that no one cares about, like Dissenter Browser + Extension, Gab News, GabTV, Art-generating AI and, most recently, Gab AI (which he swears is paying for itself, despite no evidence of anyone using it).
There may be other failures that I can't recall, but that should be enough to know that Torba has more than enough money to not only keep Gab going, but to help himself and his employees earn a living.
What's with the daily spam on this? I don't understand the argument.
Are you saying he should not be allowed to make a profit? Or that he should only seek donations from wealthy benefactors? Or that he values profit more than freedom and thus should not be trusted?
You don't have to use Gab. I've never used it and I'm pretty sure I'm fine.
Like CrazyRussian implied, you will never really have freedom with a large centralized platform. You need to put in the work to create and participate in decentralized networks, and accept the tradeoffs in ease of use and effort involved.
It's an on-going issue that comes up about once or twice a month regarding a supposed free speech website that's involved in scandals, like working with federal law enforcement without a warrant while bragging that they don't share data.
What's with the exaggeration about "daily spam" and then coming to the defense of someone who has a proven track record of making up lies?
Are you saying that lying and shaming your users who help support your family is a good thing to do?
I don't give a fuck one way or another about Torba or Gab, but the entitlement of implying that Torba owes you something, and that he shouldn't charge users but should instead use ad support or donations from wealthy benefactors is just really strange.
What's the conspiracy? That the owner of a website is trying to make money?
If it was about Gab being an intelligence collection tool or something, that might be interesting, but the whining and entitlement is stupid.
You already lost. Sorry you wasted your time on that post that I'm not gonna read. Next time, use your brain and engage in honest discussion rather than insults and making up lies.
I would disagree in that you can't say they are providing "no value". They are more free speech than any other platform regarding edgy topics.
They are just squandering money, and not providing enough for what we've given them. They squander money then guilt trip us for not having given them enough.
They squander money then guilt trip us for not having given them enough.
What is enough money? What is enough money during a $35 trillion debt foundation? Where would you attribute guilt...suggesting interest or consenting to be interested?
Usury/usus/uti - "use" implies user...
more free speech than any other platform
How does a platform/plateau - "elevated position" offer more if those on the platform have less room to operate from?
Your argument is really foolish - the alternative is to fund the company via advertising and be-beholden to corporate censorship influences. How well did that turn out?
I concur with Andrew that they only way to sustain free-independent speech is to pay for it. You have to put your money where your values are.
Each one wields the FREE will of choice to shape SPEECH...consenting to what is spoken implies buying into it, while selling self out.
The trick...few suggest "free speech" to tempt consenting many to argue against each other about it. Those who consent lack to comprehend that the suggested words "FREE SPEECH" imply speech shaped by another ones free will of choice, and ones consent to it establishes another as a chosen one over ones free will of choice.
It is a total lie.
Free speech is free (excluding internet provider bills) if you just don't use centralized platforms.
There are no any need for servers, datacenter rent, bank accounts, licenses, taxes or whatever shit imaginable to have a chat or forum or whatever in, say, rapidshare or tox or other distributed solutions. Also, there is no way for any state or corporate actor to censor anything or pressure owners, because there are no tools for censorship and no owners.
If it's a total/whole/entire lie, then there couldn't be truth...
a) If thirst is needed, then does one serve that need by drinking?
b) What can you tell me about the relationship between web-servers (jews) and web-browsers (gentiles)?
Distribution (life) by solution (inception towards death)...how could there be any other?
How does one censor a fox without claiming ownership over a chicken? Does a chicken coup imply censorship...a firewall...state interference...a dead legal body (corporation) in-between the living?
If ones free will of choice is a tool/tōwalan/tol - "implement", then how could it be negated and what implemented it?
Internet was better before social media platforms existed. You would go on forums and make friends with strangers. Let the platfirms die, I say, if they can't figure out how to make a buck.
I agree. I prefer forums over social media, as well. The topics show up on search engines, so it's helps finding useful information on a subject. Can't do the same with twitter or facebook.
Reminder that gab is fully funded every month, has investors, and collects ad revenue from its site.
Also, Torba has blown away lots of money on dumb shit that no one cares about, like Dissenter Browser + Extension, Gab News, GabTV, Art-generating AI and, most recently, Gab AI (which he swears is paying for itself, despite no evidence of anyone using it).
There may be other failures that I can't recall, but that should be enough to know that Torba has more than enough money to not only keep Gab going, but to help himself and his employees earn a living.
What's with the daily spam on this? I don't understand the argument.
Are you saying he should not be allowed to make a profit? Or that he should only seek donations from wealthy benefactors? Or that he values profit more than freedom and thus should not be trusted?
You don't have to use Gab. I've never used it and I'm pretty sure I'm fine.
Like CrazyRussian implied, you will never really have freedom with a large centralized platform. You need to put in the work to create and participate in decentralized networks, and accept the tradeoffs in ease of use and effort involved.
Two posts is daily spam?
It's an on-going issue that comes up about once or twice a month regarding a supposed free speech website that's involved in scandals, like working with federal law enforcement without a warrant while bragging that they don't share data.
What's with the exaggeration about "daily spam" and then coming to the defense of someone who has a proven track record of making up lies?
Are you saying that lying and shaming your users who help support your family is a good thing to do?
Entitled much?
I don't give a fuck one way or another about Torba or Gab, but the entitlement of implying that Torba owes you something, and that he shouldn't charge users but should instead use ad support or donations from wealthy benefactors is just really strange.
What's the conspiracy? That the owner of a website is trying to make money?
If it was about Gab being an intelligence collection tool or something, that might be interesting, but the whining and entitlement is stupid.
You already lost. Sorry you wasted your time on that post that I'm not gonna read. Next time, use your brain and engage in honest discussion rather than insults and making up lies.
lost what? besides time wasted watching a troll throw a fit
I would disagree in that you can't say they are providing "no value". They are more free speech than any other platform regarding edgy topics.
They are just squandering money, and not providing enough for what we've given them. They squander money then guilt trip us for not having given them enough.
What is enough money? What is enough money during a $35 trillion debt foundation? Where would you attribute guilt...suggesting interest or consenting to be interested?
Usury/usus/uti - "use" implies user...
How does a platform/plateau - "elevated position" offer more if those on the platform have less room to operate from?
I've never used gab. I've read things linked there, but it's never been busy enough to be interesting.
Your argument is really foolish - the alternative is to fund the company via advertising and be-beholden to corporate censorship influences. How well did that turn out?
I concur with Andrew that they only way to sustain free-independent speech is to pay for it. You have to put your money where your values are.
The argument says there is ads.
Each one wields the FREE will of choice to shape SPEECH...consenting to what is spoken implies buying into it, while selling self out.
The trick...few suggest "free speech" to tempt consenting many to argue against each other about it. Those who consent lack to comprehend that the suggested words "FREE SPEECH" imply speech shaped by another ones free will of choice, and ones consent to it establishes another as a chosen one over ones free will of choice.