Talk:Gab (social network)

GAB closure

The most recent information is that gab has been closed down as of October 28, 2018. The official page states:

"Gab.com is under attack. We have been systematically no-platformed by App Stores, multiple hosting providers, and several payment processors. We have been smeared by the mainstream media for defending free expression and individual liberty for all people and for working with law enforcement to ensure that justice is served for the horrible atrocity committed in Pittsburgh. Gab will continue to fight for the fundamental human right to speak freely.

As we transition to a new hosting provider Gab will be inaccessible for a period of time. We are working around the clock to get Gab.com back online. Thank you and remember to speak freely."

GAB user numbers

It says that GAB has 215,000 users on this page, I've found an article claiming 225,000 from August 18http://fortune.com/2017/08/18/uncensored-social-network-gab-raises-1-million-in-crowdfunding-campaign/. Is there any way of finding out what the numbers are today? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.16.91 (talk) 04:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Mr Torba has posted today that Gab has close to 650,000 users, I can only link his account rather than the actual comment, my ineptitude to blame no doubt. It seems that it's time to update the numbers once more if someone less useless than I would be so kind. Tapirium (talk) 02:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

"Bans" on Gab

Some attention should be paid to the use of the word "ban", as the common-language definition of this word does not really apply to what happens to a User that is "kicked off" the platform. My experience with the word "ban" as applied online means that the posts, text, "content" of the User remains, but the User is denied access to the account after a ban. This does not happen on Gab. When a User is "removed" from Gab, the entire account is deleted (or at least hidden from public view), and the User is denied access to the account. Sometimes the Username is available to be re-used by another User, and sometimes not. Primary difference here is that on Gab, the account is more accurately described as being "deleted" as all trace of the User's existance is removed, which means responses to the deleted User's posts will remain, but neither the deleted account's text, or the deleted account's Username will be visible.

It would be interesting to learn whether or not the content from a deleted account is retained by Gab Staff, and is only hidden from the other Users, or if it is actually deleted. email accounts (unlike Usernames) are not reusable after an account is deleted. Gab also occasionally does an IP Address "ban", thereby preventing the banned User from viewing anything of the site from the banned IP Address.

The issue I raise here is to question whether or not this level of precision is worth including in the Article, i.e. should the words "ban" and/or "deleted" be used within their appropriate contexts. I think it's at least worth thinking about, as banning, deleting and/or censoring accounts and/or Users is interesting on a social media platform dedicated to "Free Speech" in a "man bites dog" sort of way, however I also recognize that describing the situation may be too cumbersome and make a good, solid article boring and less readable. Also finding reliable sources to include this information may be difficult. But I thought I'd mention it, just in case someone has solid reasoning to either agree or disagree with the idea.2605:6000:6947:AB00:DD88:76B:181:950E (talk) 23:47, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Source to add

• Weill, Kelly (1 June 2018). "Conspiracy Theories Are Eating This Alt Right-Friendly Site From the Inside". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 13 August 2018.

Relatively little coverage in WP:RS this year, but here's one from June. Grayfell (talk) 07:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

"Alt Right"

I must strongly object to the term 'alt right' as a collective name for the internet critics of the political status quo. Alt right is a name that was given by others to what is a very wide range of critics, encompassing republicans, libertarians, conservatives, patriots, even liberals who are true to real liberalism, and a host of other individuals and groups. To coin them 'alt right' is a way of delegitimizing the "populist" movement that is gaining support.

"Other alt-right and conservative media personalities, including ......" is a false statement, as most of these people have denounced the name 'alt right' and what it stands for.

I understand that it is hard for Wikipedia editors to categorize this very varied group of critical thinkers and content creators, but to use the term 'alt right' as a collective name is taking a political stand, not objective and therefor is contrary to the neutral standpoint Wikipedia should take. At least a citation is needed as to who coined and who now uses the term 'alt right' and question it's legitimicy Ayo (talk) 09:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses reliable sources, not personal experience or original research. Wikipedia likewise isn't a platform for public relations or advertising. The reliable sources used in this article which I've seen don't really consider Gab to be varied, nor do they describe the site's users as "critical thinkers". The article includes many citations regarding Gab (and alt-right includes many citations about that term's history). Wikipedia's neutral standpoint means we don't whitewash content merely because users of a particular business might be offended by how reliable analysts describe their behavior. Grayfell (talk) 09:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

"Alt-right" is not a term given by others to a "wide range of critics". "Alt-right" is a term created by those in the alt-right and is term promoted by those identifying with the alt-right. Some people in the alt-lite wing of the alt-right have tried to distance themselves from the more open white nationalists in the alt-right, but they embraced the term before the events at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, NC in 2017. They embraced alt-right politics and still do. Benjamin5152414 (talk) 02:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2018

number of users has increased to 625'000 source Andrew Torba head of Gab SATELESHAN (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Change "Users" Section to "Notable Users", and...

It's pretty obvious that the bans and censorship of right-wing, conservative personalities (such as Alex Jones) from social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook and Youtube is going to continue and I think this Article should adapt itself to this developing reality, first by titling the "Users" section "Notable Users", and then including those notable personalities' "ban status" on those platforms. Many of those personalities would not be on Gab, and would still be on their original platforms if those platforms had not banned them. The Article does a good job of conveying the idea that Gab has a lot of "dissident thought" (Nazis, White Nationalists, White Supremacists, Racists, Vegans and other extremists), but there's also a certain "refugee" aspect to Gab that the Article does not convey.2605:6000:6947:AB00:ED9A:618F:109D:5E4 (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Listing vegans next to neo-Nazis as the same category of "extremist" seems like trolling, but perhaps this is about is some specific incident I'm not aware of. Setting that aside, what you are suggesting makes sense, but it would be original research unless sources spell it out for us. If a reliable source specifically presents Gab's notable users this way, or comments on how banned users are fleeing there, we could consider it, but to compile this information ourselves would be original research. Grayfell (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Seems like the Frog logo has been replaced...

Looking at Gab now "Gabby" is no longer featured. So, maybe at some point the new logo could be used here for the main illustration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeroXero (talk • contribs) 22:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I've updated the logo. A reliable source explaining the change should be added eventually. Since the Gabby logo's similarity to Pepe has been (one of many) reasons the site is controversial, a secondary source would be preferable. A press release could also work, though. Grayfell (talk) 23:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Individuals Outside the Platform Do Not Decide Who the Platform is For

Either remove any defamatory references suggesting that the platform is for "white supremacists", or place similar descriptions on Facebook, Twitter and Google stating that those platforms have been described as being for "far-left neo-liberals and democratic party operatives who infringe on the U.S. Constitution, discriminate against the majority based on gender and race, and violate the rights of the people to freedom of speech in order to push an extreme liberal political agenda and silence all of their opponents from any side of the political spectrum". If you need a reference for who says Twitter, Facebook, and Google exist to serve far-left interests, you can reference my quote on this page, but there are many, many others, the President of the United States being the most prominent. If you object to those descriptions and statements being placed on Facebook, Twitter, and Google's Wikipedia page, then I highly suggest you remove the following statement from Gab's Wikipedia page: "Gab has been described as a platform for white supremacists and the alt-right." Allowing all groups to exercise their freedom of speech does not ever equate to existing "for" one particular group that just happens to be one of the more controversial groups that is allowed to have and speak their views. Someone could say that Facebook is a platform for "the committee to make America 100% transgender", but obviously that would not be an appropriate, fair, or even lawful description for their Wikipedia page, would it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.126.168.126 (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Not done: Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The site has numerous liberal and libertarian users who condemn white supremacists, including Wikipedia cofounder Larry Sanger and YouTube's The Amazing Atheist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.181.242.199 (talk) 05:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear. Those are your examples? "Liberal and libertarian"??

Larry Sanger started a Gab account two months ago, immediately started complaining about all the racists on Gab and only posted a tiny trickle compared to his Twitter account. The trickle dried up after a month, and he announced he was quitting the site completely ten days later.

TJ Kirk started a Gab account after getting kicked off twitter for harassment a couple months ago, he also immediately started commenting about all the racists on Gab (including saying "...all you Gab fucks were Nazis.") When his Twitter account was restored, he said he was going to keep using Gab, but only made two posts.

That was fun, but for this to matter, you need to find reliable, independent sources explaining the opinions of these two micro-celebrities, and explaining why, despite the fact that they barely use the site, their opinions matter to Gab as a site. Even if they were hyper-posters who constantly praised the site for its diversity, you would still need reliable, independent sources explaining all this. Grayfell (talk) 08:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The point is that the claim in the lead is a biased opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.181.242.199 (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Is there any way you can just remove the reference to the alt-right from the lead or rewrite it to be more neutral about the usage by alt-right people, since there's no evidence that they represent the site's demographic? Also under the users section, there isn't a distinction between alt-right and conservative, and this is a problem because the alt-right are far-left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.181.242.199 (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Not going to happen. "...the alt-right are far-left." Are you trolling? Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. Those sources consistently link Gab to the far-right (and the alt-right, which is a subset of the far-right). The sources are the "evidence" as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Grayfell (talk) 23:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, you and the left-wing sources you point to are wrong: https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2017/08/a-note-to-the-right-regarding-the-alt-right/ National socialists are far-left, not far-right. And the fact that you think the opposite proves that you should not be editing this article and should let someone else rewrite the article to reflect a neutral POV, since you have an obvious bias. Editors arr supposed to be impartial, and you can't even get facts straight. Socialists are not right-wing. You must be a troll to claim such nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.181.242.199 (talk) 03:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Wow that article is badly written. Nazis were not Socialist, and neither is the alt-right. This isn't a forum for you to share your wrong opinions, this is a forum to discuss how to improve the article. Find a reliable source about Gab, or stop wasting time, please. Grayfell (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

This isn't a forum for you to share your wrong opinions. It is an objective fact that the Nazis were socialists. Also, a YouTube video is not evidence.50.45.251.87 (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Grayfell: looks like the two IPs are the same person. There's no point in replying to them whether it's trolling or just someone whose ignorance can't be fixed here. And it's turned into a forum style discussion. Doug Weller talk 20:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Grayfell is the troll here. He's not contributing anything that's working towards improving the article, he's just pushing his opinion. And I am not the same person as the other IP. 50.45.251.87 (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Bias against the company

This page is an entire insult to it. Half the sources have been handpicked with an obvious bias that plays around reality, all they do is try to smear the site by smearing its users. People from all walks of life are on gag, but that doesn't matter to the obvious snakes and liars who have molded this page.

Someone please correct this injustice. 154.124.163.118 (talk) 09:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Ginjuice4445 (talk) 23:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC) I concur. This article is very one-sided; recent edits I made in order to bring it back to WP:NPOV were immediately reverted to ones that were wholly critical of Gab the company. There are obviously hundreds of thousands of Gab users who are not all evil; if the critiques are going to be in this article, WP:NPOV requires that so should be the free speech angle that the company has consistently stated in all of its public statements, which directly contradict the "alt-right" narrative, as well as many of its users, the vast majority of whom appear not to be "alt-right." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginjuice4445 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

There were many problems with your edits, and the raw quantity of citations was not the main problem.

Your edits contained excessive editorializing and selective use of sources used as citations for opinions not directly supported by those sources. This is WP:SYNTH, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Further, many of those sources were questionable reliability. The use of a controversial opinion would have to be clearly attributed in the article before being crammed into the lede. Additionally, Wikipedia is not interested in "both sides" style false balance. If reliable sources say that this site is primarily known for it's far-right userbase, than the article will also reflect this. Hunting around for sources which might tangentially mention other users is cherry-picking. Discuss changes here before restoring this content. Grayfell (talk) 00:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Let's do this statement by statement:

"Gab is known for its moderation policy, which differs from comparable services such as Twitter and Facebook in that "as long as... speech is protected by the First Amendment and is lawful it remains"... this is obviously true, and extremely relevant. Literally the only reason anybody knows about Gab is this moderation policy. Everything discussed in this article, alt-right or otherwise, is a consequence of that moderation policy. The fact that people are able to call it an "alt-right" platform is because the policy exists which allows users to exercise first amendment rights in a manner that is not permitted on other platforms like Twitter or Facebook. The fact that Gab is continually censored by companies like Apple or Google which do not share that policy is newsworthy and cited throughout. I offered a Yahoo News article in direct support of this statement. You say it's "cherry picking," but it in fact summarizes why we are all here.

"with proponents describing Gab as a bastion of free speech among increasingly censorial competitor platforms"... I fail to understand how including this viewpoint violates neutrality or detracts from the discussion. The entire point of the Gab website, the very fact that it is relevant, is derived from the fact that it has positioned itself as an alternative to "Big Tech" and the moderation that "Big Tech" companies employ. Furthermore, I provided cites from the Washington Times, Verge, and Quillette in support of this proposition. If you wish, we can split out the gab-specific articles from the articles pointing out that Big Tech censorship is taking place, but all that requires is a little additional drafting for that sentence rather than a blanket undo for the entire edit.

"detractors saying it is an alt-right website"... your language currently states that "Gab has been described as an alt-right website." Not by everyone, not uniformly, not even as a consensus position. By detractors of the company, as a read of any of those links will show. Other sources praise the company or take a neutral point of view, such as a number of the references I have cited to. You can't just ignore those on the grounds that it's a "false balance." That assumes the viewpoint you propose is the only reasonable viewpoint out there, which it clearly isn't.

"Although prominent right-wing voices were among some of the site's earliest users, Gab claims that it seeks a diverse userbase" ... both true statements, which are relevant to understanding why the site's free speech bent attracted alt-righters and also directly contradicting the article's current content that the site "has been described as a site for the alt-right." The site has literally disclaimed its status as an alt-right platform and I can find no evidence of the site embracing that categorization. The only people who call the site a haven of the alt-right are people who dislike that the site permits the alt-right to operate on it, as a read of your sources shows. But Gab itself has done and said nothing to indicate that the alt-right is its intended clientele. If you're going to include the allegation you have to include the denial - this is like writing that a certain SCOTUS nominee committed an assault on his Wikipedia entry, simply because he was accused of it.

tl;dr, the "Gab is for the altright" is a disputed point. It's a label given by people to Gab who would prefer Gab kicked the alt-right off of its site rather than allowing anyone to operate on it. It is a point of view not shared, presumably, by the half-million users who use Gab or the folks who have written the articles that describe it as a free speech site first and foremost, several of which I have cited to. With that in mind, you don't get to blanket impose your viewpoint instead of describing the controversy. This is especially true when virtually every single citation in the entire article references, directly or indirectly, some element of that controversy, with the grand theme being the tug-of-war between free speech and moderation and how people react to Gab adhering to the free speech side of that equation unswervingly.

The assertions are well-sourced, supported by WP:NPOV, add valuable context in terms of WP:Notability and I think accomplish that in an unbiased way. Check your own biases at the door. I'm restoring the content and if you feel the need to undo it I'll be escalating this to an admin. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 00:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

There are some fairly major WP:DUE issues with the sources used by Ginjuice4445 to paint a picture not supported by majority of reliable sources - it strikes a false balance by using less reliable (e.g. Quillette) sources & cherrypicked quotes from reliable sources where a more holistic approach would not represent the issue in these words. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

The statement which the article currently uses, and my edit replaced - "Gab has been described as a platform for the altright" - is a half-truth. The other half of the discussion is represented by statements from the company itself and independent sources, which I cite to extensively and discuss the hate speech issue in detail without labelling the site as a platform for the altright.

The writers of those articles express an understanding that adopting a free speech policy will allow the altright to operate on the site with impunity. Your failure to embrace the other side of the controversy in the introduction to this article is extremely misleading, particularly when both sides of the controversy (free speech vs. moderation) are referenced extensively throughout. You're basically misleading your reader into thinking that the pro-moderation forces are right, that Gab's policies are motivated by bias rather than free speech absolutism, and that there are no alternative explanations for the presence of fringe elements on Gab's site.

The "holistic approach" is what my edit did. It explained why the fringe elements are there (they are there due to the moderation policy, having been booted off other platforms) rather than smearing the entire site as racist, as you propose to do. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 01:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Framing the favorable content as "neutral", and negative content as coming from "detractors" is misrepresenting a personal opinion as an objective fact. We do not pretend that if one side is significant, the "other side" must also have a place at the table. Who get's to decide where the lines between "sides" is drawn? Why only two sides, and not more, or less? It's subjective, and it's up to sources to determine these things, not editors.

Finding convenient sources to frame this as a tug-of-war between free speech moderation is specifically inappropriate here, because among other things, it's simplistic. Calling the site controversial is empty and obvious. It tells readers nothing, even if it is the "grand theme" of sources. We weigh sources based on their reliability and summarize accordingly, we don't try and balance sources based on our own assessment of their ideology. For one thing, we are not impartial when determining that ideology. For another, having an ideology doesn't make a source less correct.

We are not interesting in Gab's public relations, because Wikipedia isn't a platform for advertising. If the site's PR people claim the site has a diverse userbase, the significance of that claim would still require context from reliable sources. It's obvious from even a superficial glance at the site what the bulk if its content is, and it's perfectly compatible with the alt-right, but this is something that needs to be explained according to reliable source. They do explain this, over and over again. Grayfell (talk) 01:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Re: 1, then say "proponents and detractors." But let's not pretend the detractors aren't detractors. I read the articles. If you want to see a NPOV then look to the BBC link I link below.

Re: 2 What's this now, Washington Times, Newsweek, Ars Technica, Mic (media company) and Gizmodo aren't good, reliable sources for tech journalism? Since when? The sources are there, I did the research and found them. It's wildly inappropriate to dismiss them for no other reason than the fact that you don't like their conclusions. Incidentally, the "free speech vs moderation" angle is the exact angle which arguably the best, most objective source in the world, the BBC, took with regard to Gab (link). I'm not making this stuff up.

Re: 3, "obvious from even a superficial glance"... evidence? There are 500,000 users of the site. You really think all of them are alt-right? And you really think that a third party source quoting the company isn't relevant or worthy of inclusion? Are we not allowed to describe the company's own view of its own product on this page, especially where that view conforms with the "free speech" half of the sources and provides important context to the controversy surrounding this company? If so, I might suggest you go over to Facebook's page and tell them to pull all the quotes from Mark Zuckerberg or any Facebook employee that are all over the page. But you aren't doing that, are you.

To be frank, I think you're bringing your personal biases to the table here and are unable to see that this article does a disservice to anyone reading it. If you're that confident in your claims, accept mediation and we'll see whether the mediators agree with you. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 02:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are doing a bad job of summarizing those sources, even if some of them are reliable

I could get into why each of these sources is being misrepresented, or why grouping "detractors" together isn't neutral, but in order for that to be productive, you must understand the baseline problem with this approach. As I already explained, the raw quantity of sources isn't the problem. Did you not read that the first time? To put it simply, do not use an opinion source to present an opinion as fact. Do not use a source to imply something that is not explicitly stated. Grayfell (talk) 04:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

You are a bad faith actor, Grayfell, as both this talk page and your edits show. If you had any interest in actually reaching consensus you'd engage with the sources and suggest new language. All you're doing instead is blanking my and others' contributions. It is a pity you are unwilling to acquiesce to third party moderation, as this would reveal that my and others' contributions to this page are perfectly valid and your repeated blanking of those contributions, and inability to constructively engage with facts that run contrary to the narrative you want to promote, is old-fashioned, run of the mill bias. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 05:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

You've been trying to change the article for less than a day. Did you think consensus was quick and easy? I mean... sometimes it is, but convenience isn't the priority.

Per WP:Mediation: The role of the mediator is to facilitate consensus-building discussion, not to arbitrate or adjudicate disputes or issue binding decisions. This means you, also, have to discuss your edits in order to reach consensus. Mediation is not the Wikipedia police. If you want to report my behavior, there are other forums for this, such as WP:ANI. You're going to have to explain exactly how my behavior is inappropriate, however, and going around posting to different forums without a very good reason is going to boomerang on you as forum shopping.

Assuming good faith doesn't mean ignoring bad edits. It means exactly what's happening here on the talk page. Discussion to reach consensus. Your edits have serious problems which you have not addressed. Further, it seems that you do not understand what these problems are, or have decided that these problems don't matter. Consensus doesn't mean that you get to decide what the article says.

Like I said, I would be willing to discuss each of these sources, but only if the underlying problems are acknowledged, first. Grayfell (talk) 05:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't see that there are underlying problems, particularly with the most recent edit link to diff which was pared down from the first edit earlier today, which addressed any possible editorializing and tried to stick to the facts... and which you, once again, blanked. Blanking is not collaborative or consensus-building. Blanking isn't proposing changes to the language or asking for specific clarifications on specific citations, all of which were and are directly on point, especially the most recent set of changes I proposed (which you, lest you have forgotten, blanked). Blanking is edit warring and WP:Stonewalling. It's a total inability to see things from the perspective of the editor who is presenting you with new information that directly contradicts what you want to see in the article. And it's what makes you a very poor editor of this encyclopedia. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 05:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, let's talk about that edit. This source was a submission to a conference. It is not (yet) a properly published academic citation and should not be used without attribution, but let's look at it anyway. The summary includes this line: We analyzed 22M posts from 336K users, finding that Gab attracts the interest of users ranging from alt-right supporters and conspiracy theorists to trolls.[1] Is that something you would like to include in the lede of the article? If so, we first need to explain this information in the body. The Verge source doesn't mention Gab at all as far as I can see, making it's use in the article WP:SYNTH. Is it mentioned in the Google paper? If so, that's a WP:PRIMARY source which has additional problems. It goes on like this. Instead of trying to tweak these unusable edits, the burden is on you to gain consensus for your proposed changes, and in order for that to happen, you have to understand what we are telling you about Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 05:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Re: the paper, that's one citation out of five. What it says is that the incidence of right-wingers is about 2% higher than that on Twitter etc. so I'd be happy to see that in the lede. If that is your only substantial objection to my edit, I would recommend undoing your edit, restoring my changes and I will offer this BBC piece as an alternative citation. As for the Verge piece, this refers explicitly to the content moderation policies of Google, Facebook and Twitter. Although the powerpoint presentation the Verge piece refers to does discuss Gab, the citation is not offered to prove a point about Gab, it's offered to verify a data point about the moderation policies of those other companies. We can demonstrate Gab does not have those moderation policies with the links from the Washington Times and Gizmodo which are provided later in the sentence. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 05:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

What? My only substantial... did you read all of my comment? It wasn't that long. As I've said multiple times, there are many problems here.

Again, the "paper" is a submission, not a published study, and it shouldn't be used without attribution. That means we would need a specific reason, based on reliable sources, to provide the name of Savvas Zannettou of the Cyprus Institute of Technology in the article. What reliable source mentions this study? What does that source say about this study? That's what would be needed to use this source.

I do not see any place where the source says there are 2% more "right wingers" than on twitter. I do see where it says the use of hate words is 2.2 times higher than Twitter. This doesn't even matter, though. Digging through an obscure, unpublished study to try and find a single data-point which supports your perspective, while ignoring the summary of that study by the study's authors, is the definition of cherry-picking. No dice.

As I said, there are many problems with these edits. Too many to expect a simple fix, and too many for this to be an improvement to the article.

A source which doesn't mention Gab should not be used for an article about Gab. Using a source to support your own research about Gab is WP:OR, which is not allowed. This isn't the place to research information about Twitter or Facebook's censorship. This is the place to summarize reliable sources about Gab.

Again, there were many problems. Synthing up a summary of the site's lack of moderation to make a point about other site's censorship, or to justify why the site's userbase isn't really alt-right, would be original research in service of a specific agenda.

This is not appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 06:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Re: the percentages, your comment that " What it says is that the incidence of right-wingers is about 2% higher than that on Twitter etc. so I'd be happy to see that in the lede," it's in the journal article if you'd care to read it. "Hate speech is extensively present on the platform, as we find that 5.4% of the posts include hate words. This is 2.4 times higher than on Twitter, but 2.2 times lower than on 4chan’s Politically Incorrect board (/pol/)." That means that roughly 2.25% of the posts on Twitter include those words, and would lead to the conclusion that the incidence of those types of post on Gab make up, as a proportion of total posts, an additional 2.15% of the content on the site.

If you really don't like the journal article, I am not that attached to it and would be happy to pull the word "alternative," and the citation, completely. In the alternative I have the BBC link I mentioned above which can be offered in support of the same assertion, but again you aren't interested in dealing with new information as much as you are in preventing any changes from being made to this article. Re: Verge, if you would allow the language, which of course you won't, I'll do the research and find a solid supporting citation that includes Gab, or redraft the sentence to e.g. "Gab follows a moderation policy X. This is different from Company A and B which follow moderation policy Y." This helps explain why Gab is important and why indeed anyone is on this page talking about it.

Summing up, I proposed adding maybe 25 words to this article, tops, in an effort to make this article provide a neutral treatment to the subject matter, not "in service of a specific agenda." My agenda is accurate treatment of this subject. I have provided plenty of citations from reliable sources in several different ways in an attempt to appease you, who are WP:Stonewalling any modifications to the article whatsoever. What's inappropriate here is your refusal to accept changes to an article you've been camped out on for a long time because of your own personal biases, and your total inability to identify specific criticisms in response to my attempts to elicit them.

Waving your arms around frantically with unspecified claims that my edits violated this wikipedia policy or that one is a poor substitute for having an interest in dealing with and incorporating well-sourced information which directly contradicts the main thrust of this article as it stands today. I am not "Synthing up a summary of the site's lack of moderation to make a point about other site's censorship." I'm explaining why Gab is controversial. This subject is dealt with extensively by every other citation I included with the new language, but previous attempts to quote from those sources directly resulted in the erasure of my contributions on the basis that - in your words - "Wikipedia is not interested in 'both sides' style false balance", and the reversion to the (painfully incorrect) version of the article that we have before us now. The fact is, you just don't want to include new sources or information that contradict your views. This article is of poor quality because of you. Shame on you. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 13:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

The number of posts containing hate words is not the same as the number of users! Unless, of course, each user only ever made a single post. Also, why are you assuming that all uses of hate words indicate "right-wingers" and none of the non-hate word users are right wing? If you made a mistake, fine. If you do not understand the study, don't cite it.

The lede of the article already states that Gab promotes itself as a free speech platform. It's in the first paragraph, before even the alt-right stuff. Nowhere does the article claim that every single user is alt-right, or that Gab was actively designed to be alt-right exclusive. The flip-side of free speech is that a platform which doesn't control its users also doesn't get to control what other people say about it. When reliable sources look at Gab (which isn't very often) they find that it's dominated by the far-right and conspiracy theorists who actively drive away more moderate users. If Torba didn't want this to happen, he done fucked up, didn't he?

You keep mentioning a BBC article from 2016 as an alternative, but this is backwards. What is it an alternative to? You should not adding information you personally know or believe and then go looking for sources which support your prior assumptions. We should find reliable sources and summarize them. Further, we don't just cite the headline, we cite the substance of the article. The article is very clear that Gab is very, very popular with the alt-right ("It's become the go-to social network for an extreme group of activists who have been chucked off of Twitter", "...the fact that Gab has offered asylum to the alt-right refugees from Twitter who have washed up on its shores...", "He says the site will continue to attract more of the same types of users - conservatives and alt-right activists", etc.) I have never seen a source which claims that all users of the site are alt-right, and that's obviously incorrect... but according to reliable sources, most of them are on the right-leaning fringes. As the BBC points out, Twitter has vastly more significant users and a vastly larger audience, so why wouldn't someone just use that site?

In the BBC article, Torba is frequently quotes, but he does a tepid job of defending the site's reputation. He mentions some other users, but he never indicates why those users cannot also be alt-right. As an example, he is implying that one cannot be a Hindu philosopher and also far-right, but this is demonstrably false, and he is not qualified to make this claim anyway. Even the BBC article puts "diverse users" in quotes, suggesting that the BBC isn't willing to except this as straightforward.

Torba's opinion would need to be presented as his opinion, and only with a specific reason. Cheryl K. Chumley of The Washington Times might write an opinion about "why the ideological right can’t create an Internet-based community of its own"[2] but who gets to summarize that opinion, and why exactly, does that opinion belong in the lede of the article?

Believe it or not, I actually do have some knowledge about how Wikipedia works. If you want to fixate on my behavior as a villain, instead of trying to understand what I'm saying, you might get to feel smug about the situation, but the article isn't going to improve, and you might get blocked for personal insults. Grayfell (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I can't help but agree with most editors here - especially the early edits by Ginjuice4445 are poorly sourced, riddled with original research and rely on very thin claims to make sweeping statements. The open hostility of the editor shows no willingness to work towards a consensus and frankly completely turned me off. Ravensfire (talk) 23:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Again, finding it hard to see how my sources are poorly sourced when they're all mainstream newspapers or tech publications. I have made minimal changes to the text and merged the two paragraphs in order to prevent the article from conveying the misleading impression that the site is uniformly regarded as alt-right. These are all solid sources so if you're going to challenge them, please explain one by one and get consensus before you revert. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Ravensfire, and I would revert the most recently sourced revisions to the last version edited by Greyfell. The current revisions move the page away from WP:NPOV. SportingFlyer talk 02:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• As multiple editors have now tried to explain, the problem is not the quantity of sources, it's how they are misrepresented to convey a specific, promotional perspective. I cannot understand why this is confusing to you. If you don't understand with what any of us are saying, ask new questions instead of demanding even more answers to questions we've already tried to address. Grayfell (talk) 02:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• I tried to revert the changes but it looks like I messed something up, I apologise. Looks like I don't understand how to revert several revisions using the "undo" feature. SportingFlyer talk 07:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

If you are using the web version: from the page's history, select the revision you want to restore and click "cur" on the left-hand side. This will produce a diff spanning to the current revision, like this one. From there, 'undo' should work. I haven't figured it out on the mobile site or the apps. Grayfell (talk) 08:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done the revert. You shouldn't feel the need to apologise - personally, it took me ages to figure out how. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I am going to try reaching consensus on this the usual way. Suggest closing this discussion. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Drafting lede to WP:NPOV

I propose the following language for the lede:

Gab is a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania-based social networking service formerly based in Austin, Texas. It was created as an alternative to Twitter and promotes itself as supporting free speech, although critics describe Gab as a platform for white supremacists and the alt-right. It allows its users to read and write messages of up to 300 characters, called "gabs". The site also offers multimedia functionality.

Why?

...The issue with the current lede is that it insinuates that the site is designed for the alt-right and white supremacists. There are two problems with this. First, much of what is offered to show this is op-ed content - particularly the Vice and CNBC pieces. None of the sources offered to demonstrate that assertion actually show that the site is aimed at or exclusively for the alt-right actually demonstrate that. Second, I offer four sources - Newsweek, Washington Times, Gizmodo, and Yahoo News - which are reliable and which indicate that there is more to the "free speech" side of the discussion than other editors, in particular Grayfell, are willing to admit. It also fails to touch on the fact that much of the controversy around Gab relates to the tug-of-war between free speech on the one hand and moderation on the other, with secondary sources such as the BBC and primary sources such as Google both showing that Gab stands alone among similar tech companies in possessing this zero-moderation policy.

Unless anyone can provide specific reasons why these four sources are somehow deficient or do not add proper context to this article I intend to update the article with this language. I am open to suggestions for better language or sources. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Since we have already provided reasons these edits are not appropriate, you should think twice before issuing an implied ultimatum. You may disagree with our reasons, but that doesn't make them invalid. You do not get to limit this discussion by requiring that we only objection on your terms. A reliable source is only reliable in context.

Neither the CNBC article nor the Vice article are opinions. They are merely two of many sources which document Gab's reputation and user-base.

"Critics" is a WP:WEASEL term. It's not just undefined "critics" who describe Gab as a platform for the alt-right, it's virtually every single reliable source which investigates it. Replacing "critics" with "outside observers" or "experts" would be exactly as accurate and much more neutral. Implying that it's "Critics" vs. "free speech" is pretty blatantly misrepresenting this as false equivalence. We do not have some sources saying one thing and others saying something different. We have sources in agreement that the site is populated with alt-right and conspiracy theory content far above and beyond most other social media sites. Wikipedia has a mainstream bias, like it or not, and when reliable sources say a thing over and over, we don't cast doubt on that just because one company, or some editors, disagree.

Nowhere does the article say that the site was designed for the alt-right, but does say, correctly, that the site provides a platform to the alt-right. Further, according to reliable, non-opinion sources, it is primarily known as a platform for the alt-right and similar fringe groups. The occasional kitten memes or confused libertarians do not invalidate this, and as far as I can see the article doesn't imply that every single contributor must be a white supremacist.

So using the term although as a connection falsely implies that "alt-right" and "free speech" are somehow incompatible or opposed. This is editorializing, as reliable, non-opinion sources do not claim that the site's stated mission of advocating for free speech is incompatible with being a platform for the alt-right, etc. Even Torba admits that the site's popularity among the alt-right is no accident, since the site welcomes people who have been kicked-off of other platforms for their ideas. The current lead already says that it's purported mission is to advocate for free speech, which we all seem to agree on. The current lede also states that it has been identified as a platform for the alt-right and white supremacists. If reliable sources do not state as a fact that these two things are incompatible, neither should Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 23:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I concur with Grayfell. The current lede does not insinuate the site is designed for the alt-right. The only sentence at issue here is "Gab has been described as a platform for white supremacists and the alt-right." I don't mind rewriting this sentence, but it's already very neutral compared to what could be written as a synthesis of the sources quoted. I don't actually recommend any changes. SportingFlyer talk 02:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

SportingFlyer I agree it's neutral but it's not telling the full story, only half of it. I detail below.

Grayfell:

1) "You do not get to limit this discussion by requiring that we only objection on your terms." I'm asking you to object to the sources. If you can't object to the quality of the sources, please explain why this article - being part of an encyclopedia - should not include and account for the viewpoint those sources represent.

2) The CNBC piece is clearly an opinion source. Vice is also known to have a "slight to moderate" left bias. The only source offered for the "alt-right" assertion which could be considered neutral is the Times of Israel piece.

3) Point taken re: platform. Instead of "critics" then "others" or other language.

4) "reliable, non-opinion sources do not claim that the site's stated mission of advocating for free speech is incompatible with being a platform for the alt-right, etc." ...but it has been described as both a platform for free speech and a platform for the alt-right. The new, objective, reliable sources I have introduced which you are unable to object to all state that it is a free speech platform and aims to be such. Not including the "free speech" component because you want to keep the "alt-right" front and center is also editorializing. The current wording of the article emphasizes alt-right and de-emphasizes free speech. I am trying to create balance.

5) "If reliable sources do not state as a fact that these two things are incompatible, neither should Wikipedia." You're asking the wrong question. The question isn't whether they are incompatible, the question is what the service actually is. That is disputed. The service itself argues it is a free speech haven. Critics call it an alt-right haven. See BBC "Free Speech Haven or Alt-Right Safe Space?", [[The Hill] describes the site as a "free speech alternative" to Twitter (link), as did the Newsweek, Yahoo/Huffpo, Washington Times and Gizmodo pieces.

The current lede says "It was created as an alternative to Twitter and promotes itself as supporting free speech...Gab has been described as a platform for white supremacists and the alt-right." That's half correct. It is true that Gab promotes itself as supporting free speech. It is also true that Gab has been described by neutral third persons as a platform for free speech, which happens to be the view the company provides, and by other neutral third persons as a platform for the alt right. Generally the people who give it one description are not inclined to give it the other description. I've now provided numerous reliable, neutral, third party sources that show Gab has been described by persons other than itself as a free speech platform. It is high time those sources and the views they express were represented fairly in the lede. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 02:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The free speech bit is in the lede. It was created as an alternative to Twitter and promotes itself as supporting free speech. You have just admitted neutral sources describe the company either as promoting free speech OR as a platform for the alt-right. Both of those views can co-exist in the lede, and actually must coexist in the lede per WP:NPOV. Calling one "critics" is not neutral. There is no problem here. SportingFlyer talk 02:33, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree we can drop the word critics. However there is a difference between saying "the company promotes itself as a free speech platform + third parties call it alt right" and "the company promotes itself as a free speech platform + third parties call it a free speech platform or alt right." The first version is prejudicial to the company by making it seem like independent sources don't buy the free speech narrative. The second version is fairer. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 02:38, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I still disagree with you, and we are here to state facts, not to promote a company in its best light, but I have no problem if you want to add other third-parry sources after the "promotes itself as a free speech platform" sentence. SportingFlyer talk 02:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

How about this:

"Gab is a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania-based social networking service formerly based in Austin, Texas.[1][2] Gab promotes itself and has been described as a "free speech alternative to Twitter"[3][4][5][6][Plus BBC and The Hill, so [7] [8] too]. It has also been described as a platform for white supremacists and the alt-right. It allows its users to read and write messages of up to 300 characters, called "gabs". The site also offers multimedia functionality." Ginjuice4445 (talk) 02:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I do not agree with this reasoning, although it's a step in the right direction. Not every aspect of this site is a defining characteristic. So let's go through which reliable sources say it's a free speech platform and evaluate for WP:DUE:

• The BBC source doesn't say this. It phrases this as an unanswered question as a rhetorical device, and quotes Torba's claims that it is about free speech. This has already been established.
• The Hill article says Gab.ai, a “free speech” alternative to Twitter, does not enforce any form of “community standard.” The use of quotation marks cannot be ignored. Who is being quoted? Presumably it is Gab itself, which is again, already established. The paragraph contextualizes Gab as being filled with conspiracy theories and says If bad speech drives out good in the absence of community standards, most people will not use the platform. The paragraph is the only mention of Gab in the source. What is this source, judged by itself, saying about Gab?
• The Newsweek source is explicitly about The conflict over Gab’s credibility as a “free speech” website... This is about the site's hosting problems and their banning of weev. Again, it uses quotes and cites PR from the site itself. It's a complicated issue which is clearly not taken at face value by the source. It also directly and repeatedly compares Gab to Daily Stormer, and not favorably. They are not calling Daily Stormer a free speech platform (nobody is calling it that) they are saying that hosting the site is a free speech issue. This may be true, but is a very different thing.
• The Gizmodo source is more plausible. I think a case could be made that, like the Newsweek one, it's about the site's infrequent censorship, not about it's free speech, but the context does support the "free speech" description: But while Gab might claim to be the most active site that lets users write whatever they hell they want, it’s still a website. Websites have guidelines, and guidelines are made to be enforced. Gab’s rules are fairly unsurprising: No doxxing, revenge porn, credible threats, spam, or selling drugs or weapons. So far, it’s already banned three users—and the long waiting list means a banned user can’t immediately return. I reject the idea that we have to take tongue-in-cheek description at face value. We stick to sources, but we don't have to play stupid to obvious sarcasm or irony. The Gizmodo article uses scare-quotes around "censorship" and describes Gab's contempraries as clamoring to be the Most Free for free speech absolutists. Like I said, we have to pay attention to context. It's also worth noting that this was January 2017, and both the site, and its coverage, has changed since then. This is a problem with many of the article's sources, but that's a separate issue.
• If you're concerned about bias, citing an opinion from Washington Times is pretty silly, but regardless, it would only belong with attribution, as already mentioned.
• The Yahoo article is also about the Weev incident, like the Newsweek one. It quotes a Gab exec as claiming it's about free speech, and says the site's hosting difficulties raise "questions" about free speech online, but this all seems far too abstract when taken out of context.
• The Huffington Post article is a republication of the Yahoo article. They are functionally the exact same source.
• If I had a nickel for every time someone tried to use mediabiasfactcheck on a talk page... well, I'd have a few bucks at least. Even if that site were reliable, which I do not accept, the "bias" of a site isn't the issue. It's possible for left, right, or center sources to be reliable. Regardless, the Vice article very clearly attributes the free speech claims to Gab and nobody else. The source also cites the conference paper discussed earlier, which is useful. It quotes from the paper's summary: "while Gab claims to be all about free speech, this seems to be merely a shield behind which its Alt-right users hide". The pretty clearly summarizes the underlying issue, and it the sources were stronger, I would propose including that quote in this article.

Did I miss any? Grayfell (talk) 04:27, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Don't think so, and agree we're getting somewhere. Let me chew on your comments and will come back in a few days. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 05:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

References

I've restored far-right to the lede, and I think we need to add the recent events including PayPal's banning and loosing their provider. Note that being a free speech site and far-right are not contradictory. Doug Weller talk 08:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The controversy escalated rather quickly - I support this generally. SportingFlyer talk 09:59, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

And, no surprise, it's gone so the first para just presents GAB's views, with others relegated to the second paragraph. Doug Weller talk 16:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

There have been a number of intervening changes to the second paragraph. I have tried to ensure that the viewpoints are all contained in the second paragraph, with undisputed information only in the first. I disagree that the term "far-right" belongs in the lede. Simply because a number of the site's users are far-right does not make it a far-right site. The references reflect the two-sided nature of the debate about Gab and who uses it. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

This page appears to be somewhat controversial. I do not wish to add more controversy but to at least add balance. I too disagree that the term far-right belongs in the first paragraph, and a bit more objectivity should be inserted to compensate for the obvious emotional reactions Gab apparently produces in some editors. I have (naively) attempted to add two pieces of information. First addition was to the first paragraph that clarified Gab's stated purpose as 'free speech' rather than simply regurgitated what some press reports have labelled it as 'alt-right haven'. The second addition (actually made first) was to add a reference to the email sent to Gab users reiterating Gab's policy against violence or inciting violence. I found a copy of the email posted on Medium and cited it there but this was felt to be 'unreliable' despite the fact that none other than NPR used the same reference ( see https://www.npr.org/2018/10/28/661532688/a-look-at-gab-the-free-speech-social-site-where-synagogue-shooting-suspect-poste ). As if to confirm the conservative claims of liberal bias, my additions were immediately reversed without plausible reason. One claim was 'false reference' which was absurd. Another labelled my additions or reversal of reversals 'vandalism'. I leave the history log to the viewers' honest review. As a new Wiki editor, I apologize in advance for any faux pas or lack of fancy markup Dell Anderson

No bias here, but Medium is not a WP:RS. SportingFlyer talk 01:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Categories

The company was founded in Austin, Texas, but is now in Philadelphia. The article is currently in 2 Austin categories, but not in their Philadelphia counterparts. Pleade add these categories. 37.26.148.236 (talk) 11:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 11:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

"Other alt-right and conservative media personalities,"

This is clearly an association fallacy, an appeal to emotion, and therefore a NPOV violation. You wouldn't say "Other Nazi and Liberal media personalities" now would you? Either rewrite this section to make it NPOV or use one phrase to describe all people involved. Also, this information is unsourced (it does not appear in the article). Rip-Saw (talk) 12:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree. I have attempted to make this change but it was undone by editors who do not see it that way. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

"Far-right" in lede

Violates WP:NPOV. Editors keep prioritizing their own editorials ahead of well-sourced objective reporting. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

What is the "well-sourced objective reporting" in this case? --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm interested in any reliable sources you could provide that disagree with 'far-right'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm interested in any sources you could provide that says Gab is in fact a 'far-right' network. It has far-right users, as many sources point out, but none of these sources identify Andrew Torba, its founder, as being far-right, or the company itself as being far-right. The company permits far-right opinion, as indeed it allows all opinion of any kind that's allowed by the First Amendment. It is a leap to go from "this site tolerates far-right opinion" to "this is a far right social network."

On multiple occasions, including your most recent revert of my attempt to make this article more neutral, you've chosen to ignore sources which describe the site as a pro-free speech site first which happens to permit these far-right opinions. See this edit you reverted. Those citations contradict the proposition that Gab is a "far right" site. Deleting the citations doesn't mean they don't exist. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 22:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

there is no arguing with these people. Just be thankful the little propaganda ministers aren't pushing neo-nazi in the lede. It's hilarious that a youtube video from over a year ago is a source for it being far-right. Well here's sourced youtube video, from today, declaring it not far-right. <redacted> Oh wait, youtube videos shouldn't be seen as a source. And for good reason. I now patiently wait for my edit to be reversed, and for there to be a "very serious™ and "reliable™" reason why Gab is definitely and without question, politically aligned with National Socialists and Fascists. (ideologies that almost always oppose free speech) 2601:982:4200:A6C:4D27:B556:CEF0:1571 (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I removed the Youtube link; not a place for promotion. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I note your sources. You've provided headlines, not links. Summarizing headlines do not prove that this is a "far-right" platform. There's a dispute, per this reverted edit and others, as to whether this is a far-right site. I provided references showing it's a free speech site.

The site itself denies that it's alt-right. There are sources that agree with the site's own view of itself. There is no reason why this view shouldn't be represented and why the "far-right" description should be accepted as fact. The way to resolve the dispute in a consensus fashion is to say it is "described as an alt right site and described as a free speech site" rather than to say unequivocally and against consensus that it's "definitely a far-right site." Ginjuice4445 (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a platform for public relations or advertising. You've provided many sources which mention free speech, but virtually all them, as has already been discussed in tedious detail, emphasize the far-right nature of the site. I haven't seen any reliable sources which agree that the site is "free speech" without a boatload of qualifiers. Gab's PR is irrelevant, and even your own sources are skeptical of this spin. The number of sources defining the site as far-right way has ballooned with the recent shooting, but this isn't a new thing. "Free speech" has always been a tactic to court the far-right, by Torba's own admission. Why do you think so many of these sources put free speech in scarequotes? Grayfell (talk) 23:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

No offense but this argument is rampant WP:SPECULATION. The articles mention free speech, period. We do not know why the authors chose to put the term in quotation marks where they chose to do so. It may be for emphasis, for example. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 23:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

This is becoming tendentious. We do not ignore context. This has already been explained multiple times. The article already explains the site's self-description. Grayfell (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with your explanation and believe, given your problematic history with similar topics on your talk page (Ben Shapiro, Antifa in particular) that your perspective is tinged by bias. You are choosing to ignore good, objectively sourced information that contradicts your viewpoint. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 23:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Please see:

• Anti-Semitic posts deleted from 'alt-right social network' following Microsoft crackdown -- The Telegraph
• Gab, Far-Right Web Platform Favored by Pittsburgh Shooter, Attacks Critics and Appeals to Donald Trump -- Newsweek
• On Gab, an Extremist-Friendly Site, Pittsburgh Shooting Suspect Aired ... York Times
• Alt-right website Gab attracts Bolsonaro supporters in Brazil -- Danbury News Times

K.e.coffman (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Re: I provided references showing it's a free speech site, "far-right" and "free speech" are not mutually exclusive. The platform is best known as the hangout of the far-right. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

"Best known?" Hard to prove that/that's editorializing, particularly given the sources that show it's a free speech network rather than a far right network. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

So when dozens of sources describe a site as far-right, it's time for nuance and subtly. When some of those same sites use the term "free speech" as context for explaining why it's far-right, subtly becomes "editorializing". Grayfell (talk) 23:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

When sites use free speech you don't ignore the "free speech" description, you give it equal treatment. See this NPR piece from today as an example of how to do it right: "a small social networking site that prides itself on providing a platform for free speech — but has become a gathering point for far-right users... As NPR's Alina Selyukh reported last year, 'many members of the far right and others who feel their views are stifled by mainstream sites like Twitter and Facebook' have gravitated toward Gab, with its promise of few restrictions on speech." That's fair, evenhanded language. Why can't we replicate it in this article? Ginjuice4445 (talk) 23:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I like that source. So what does it say? The source says that the far-right has gravitated to Gab, which it specifically identifies as a "gathering point for far-right users", because it "prides itself on providing a platform for free speech". These two things are not disconnected. The only uses of the term "free speech" are in the headlines (which don't count?) and in comments attributed to Gab or Torba. If you want to summarize this source, you need to summarize the whole thing, not just the parts that you like. Grayfell (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Contrary to what you're saying, "free speech" appears twice in the body in the article, not zero. One of them is a quote from Torba. The other (and the first) is the lede of the article. The article also discusses the site's community standards in detail as the reason that alt-righters use the site.

The way to reflect that in prose is "It is a free speech site. As a result, far-right users use it because they don't get censored." That is what the NPR article says. Not, "it is a far right site. It also has a free speech policy." There are few sources more reliable than NPR. This is the view this Wikipedia article should reflect. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 00:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Read my comments again. I said it appears in the headline and in comments attributed to Gab/Torba. The lede usage is attributed to Gab itself, as context makes clear.

If this is now about "censorship", we need to evaluate sources all over again. Not every instance of someone being kicked off a platform should be called "censorship". Did Gab censor Weev? Did they censor the Synagogue shooter? Are they censoring spammers? This approach is loaded and inflammatory.

Which sources are saying this is about "censorship"? The NPR source only uses the term when quoting Gab's own material. Introducing this into the lede would absolutely require multiple reliable sources presenting this as a defining trait. Some sources discuss this, but that's not enough. Torba would certainly like us mention censorship, but reliable sources do not, apparently, accept that it's that simple. We are not trying to cram as many possible details as we can into the lede. Grayfell (talk) 00:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not about cramming details in, it's about being accurate. TBQH if we replaced the second paragraph of this article's lede with the NPR lede word for word it would be an improvement. "Gab is a small social networking site that prides itself on providing a platform for free speech — but has become a gathering point for far-right users. Many members of the far right and others who feel their views are stifled by mainstream sites like Twitter and Facebook' have gravitated toward Gab, with its promise of few restrictions on speech." That would be perfect and is far superior to the current wording. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 01:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Do we have any evidence that non-ethnonationalist views are suppressed or censored on Gab? Would that not be the most objective way to determine if the *site* itself is far Right? If it does not meet that criteria, it would be more accurate to describe it as a site patronized by or popular among the far Right, which is what has actually been substantiated thus far. DsouzaSohan (talk) 02:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Edit Request

Could the {{Current related}} and {{Excessive citations}} tags be put on the page as well? funplussmart (talk) 02:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Disagree. With events in such a high state of flux (Gab just went down within the last 30 minutes, with a message that looks more "long term" than temporary) and Mass Media's efforts at essentially blaming a social media platform for one of it's account holders, the Article needs those citations for credibility. At this time, the Article needs MORE citations, not less. I just found a passage that said something it's citation did not say. There are probably more. With Gab offline, and it's only competitor (Twitter's) bias and censorship, there no longer exists a "check and balance" against the Media Narrative.2605:6000:6947:AB00:403D:E24D:E465:4A0 (talk) 02:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

"Investors" "Cutting Ties" is not supported by the Source Given

From the "2018 Pittsburgh synagogue shooting" Section:

Despite backlash, the CEO of Gab, Andrew Torka, has maintained that he will do everything in his power to keep the service running, even as investors cut ties.[59]

I think the passage "even as investors cut ties" should be cut, as the idea that the coincident timing seems to be manufactured from somewhere other than the source. Also "Torka's" name is spelled wrong.

I also think that if the Article is going to make a big deal out of the association between the Synagogue Shooter and a Gab Account, it should also list one of the many other major crimes that have been committed by people with a Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, etc.... account, for balance. The impression given is "Only Users of Gab commit heinous crimes", with the secondary message of "Gab causes heinous crimes", which is the current media narrative, given the proximity to the mid-term elections. Unless Wikipedia WANTS to associate Gab with heinous crime, and/or establish a causal relationship, in which case it should do so explicitly. The current bias undermines Wikipedia's credibility on the topic. Either balance the Article, or make the Gab/Crime association explicit.2605:6000:6947:AB00:403D:E24D:E465:4A0 (talk) 02:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)