Talk:Gab (social network)/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Dispute: Revenue- “Gab does not use advertising”

Despite the numerous articles floating around online apparently in support of this statement, all of which seem to cite/trace back down, ultimately, to the following quote from their 2016 fundraising campaign:

“Gab is an ad-free social network dedicated to preserving individual liberty, the freedom of speech, and the free flow of information on the internet. We believe a free and open internet is essential to the future of a free world. Freedom is creative. It produces. It generates. From freedom flows truth, beauty, wisdom, and growth.”

…their website currently lists “No Ads | Remove all promoted posts in your Gab Social feeds.” as a perk for donors/subscribers.

It's unclear to me, however, whether that listed perk is satire/etc., given that I can find apparently no external discussion (news articles, blogposts, Twitter kerfuffle, etc.) on the matter. I know that Wikipedia eschews "Original Research", so I didn't want to just make the edit "citing" Gab's website.

-- SpearmintSalad (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Gab does have "promoted posts", though it's unclear to me whether they solely consist of promotions for Gab Pro or if others are allowed to promote posts and/or advertise on the site. I agree with you that there is very little mention of ads on Gab, aside from the self-description of "ad-free social network" which appears to come from their 2017 StartEngine listing. Part of the issue may be the general lack of coverage of Gab at all in reliable sources in the past couple of years. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Specifically: I can't find anything corroborating the ubiquitous "ad-free social network" quote anywhere on their website at this time. It appears journalists have been propagating that for 3+ years now without adding a drop of signal back into the informational supply-chain.

But I also can't find so much as one tweet or op-ed about any kind of "move" to an ad-based platform, or any place to sign up to advertise on the website, so I am definitely confused as to what this "Promoted" post thing is about.

It looks like, perhaps, Torba's reaching out to individual politicians, rather than offering a standardized way for advertisers to contact him? (This interpretation somewhat doubtful) -- SpearmintSalad (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it's hard to tell. But without a contradictory source, and with fairly recent reliable sources using the claim, I don't think it makes sense to take it out either. The downsides of WP:TRUTH, I guess... GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, nevermind on the confusion. I think I found it, two minutes after posting that. 🤦

“Some updates today: … Promoted Posts[: ]Standard users will see promoted posts from our affiliate partners …”
–gab, Sep 17, 2019

and the comments on that announcement:

• “So much for "ad free".... That's basically what promoted posts boils down to....”
• “Look, Gab needs revenue somehow. I much prefer ads going straight to funding Gab verses Facebook's targeted ads and data selling.”
• “Those promoted posts (ads) are not very intrusive.”
• “so much for ad free then, ****”
• “With this announcement that forced advertising will be gab's "new cool feature", I am finally on the "**** this ****" bandwagon. … I do not consent. I do not want your ads.”
• “Does anyone really believe that now that the 'no ads' promise has been broken, there is not more commercialization to come down the road? 🤔”

Relevantly, none of the above had been factually disputed in their replies (as far as I could identify).

Even after trying queries to do with the phrase "affiliate partners", I could nevertheless find no external discussion on this via Google/similar.

I guess the above will have to serve to support updating that section. -- SpearmintSalad (talk) 18:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@SpearmintSalad: I've made this change to reflect the current state of affairs. I've included the "better source needed" inline comment since a third-party RS would be much better, but I agree that using a primary source to make the article more accurate is preferable than suggesting outdated information is up-to-date. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

My proposal to fix the inaccurate leading sentence of the article

The first sentence states “Gab is an English-language social networking service known for its far-right userbase” and then uses 4 sources which do not exactly describe that as Gabs defining overall feature. Here are the 4 sources And what they actually say: -The New York Times FIRST states gabs defining feature is it “lack of user guidelines & how it only bans illegal activity” BEFORE calling it a safe haven for the alt right. -The Verge FIRST calls Gab an “anything-goes haven” BEFORE it mentions the alt right userbase. -NPR source FIRST mentions “users are invited to speak freely” as the defining characteristic of gab BEFORE it talks about its resulting far right audience . -The Guardian FIRST describes Gab as having “no restrictions on content” BEFORE it explains how the userbase is mostly alt right.

So it’s clear that BECAUSE of Gabs “anything goes” “less restrictive” speech guidelines on its site, the alt right userbase was a resulting effect. The defining feature that all these reliable sources is gabs speech guidelines. The alt right far right userbase is simply a symptom or effect of these guidelines.

I propose the following change to the lead sentence so it reads as follows: “Gab is an English-language social networking service known for non-restrictive “Anything goes” speech guidelines.” A following sentence can then discuss the resulting alt-right userbase, but since it is simply a symptom and resulting effect of gabs defining feature (of less-restrictive speech), It doesn’t belong in the first sentence. Any audience is simply describing a symptom of a websites overall features. Keep in mind other articles on social networking websites do not describe a websites audience political beliefs in the first sentence. Megat503 (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Come 👏 up 👏 with 👏 sources 👏 to 👏 support 👏 your 👏 position👏.--Jorm (talk) 18:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

as I stated above, my sources are the 4 sources Included in the current lead sentence: Hess, Amanda (November 30, 2016). "The Far Right Has a New Digital Safe Space". The New York Times.

Robertson, Adi (September 6, 2017). "Far-right friendly social network Gab is facing censorship

Selyukh, Alina (May 21, 2017). "Feeling Sidelined By Mainstream Social Media, Far-Right Users Jump To Gab". All Things Considered. NPR.

Hall, Sam (May 11, 2019). "Ukip candidates urge followers to switch to far-right social network Gab". The Observer.

As you know, these are some of the most reliable sources in the world. So it’s pretty strong with the way they mention the non restrictive speech guidelines before they mention the alt right userbase. All 4 articles mention the speech guidelines First as a defining characteristic of gab so so WP:Weight applies here.

Megat503 (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Megat503: All four sources describe Gab as being popular among the far-right in their titles, so the argument about the ordering somehow making the guidelines more noteworthy than the far-right userbase doesn't hold water. If that were the case, they would mention the guidelines/lack of restrictions/etc. in the titles. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare:The titles may be optimized for a narrative around Gab's far-right userbase, but I thought that "citations" are supposed to rely on the factual content of the referenced sources? I don't think what you said rebuts @Megat503:'s suggestion.

“If that were the case, they would mention the guidelines/lack of restrictions/etc. in the titles”
is a claim, which I do not believe a reading of those 4 articles bears out. All these articles do mention Gab's focus on "free speech" or "anything-goes", and express it as a causal factor in its attraction of its claimed alt-right userbase. --SpearmintSalad (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@SpearmintSalad: The causality, as I have said below, is rebutted by additional sourcing. Because it is a contested viewpoint, it should not be mentioned uncritically in the lead sentence as Megat is suggesting. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

regardless of the title, The articles all explain that the Resulting alt-right user base is directly because of the defining characteristic of gab: the non restrictive speech guidelines. That “guidelines” must be ascribed to this articles leading sentence as all the linked sources to that sentence describe the same thing in their very first paragraphs. I can find an article that calls twitter the social network of choice for isis In the title ( https://www.wsj.com/articles/islamic-state-sympathizers-in-u-s-prefer-twitter-among-social-media-1448982000 ). That Title argument Holds no water because the article explains everything not the clickbait title. The title of commercial news websites have a conflict of interest to produce as many clicks as possible and generate ad revenue don’t you think they may be sensationalist ? Titles are meaningless without the context of the article. You know this. Regardless is the title My argument stands- all the articles mention the free speech guidelines as the defining characteristic of the platform. You are blatantly ignoring that for some reason . Megat503 (talk) 22:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Titles can be useful in determining the key information the sources are trying to convey; I would argue they are certainly more useful than the contextless discussion of information order.

There is a major difference between "I can find an article that describes X as Y", and nearly all coverage of X describing it as Y. The latter is the case with Gab and its far-right userbase. These articles focus on Gab being far-right, and mention Gab's guidelines as one explanation for its userbase, but it is the userbase it is known for, and the articles support that.

Additional sourcing (later in the article) mentions how Gab likes to try to shield itself by pointing to its lack of moderation as an explainer for its far-right userbase, so the sourcing actively conflicts with describing Gab in the way you are suggesting. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:57, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Gorilla you’re not following. I’m not contesting whether gab has an alt right userbase. I think it would be more accurate to mirror those 4 listed sources by writing in the same sequence - first mention the “Anything goes” guidelines and then in a following sentence mention the alt right userbase. Currently, the Wikipedia article seems to be Selectively Cherry-picking statements from those listed sources out of context. We need to make Wikipedia more accurate by not cherry-picking. The whole story needs to be told. The user guidelines are non restrictive. All the sources state something to that nature And they say it is explicitly gabs defining feature . Agreed? Let’s add it to the articles lead sentence Already. It’s beyond overdue Megat503 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I think I'm following quite clearly. I'm not sure where you're seeing that I think you think Gab doesn't have a far-right userbase, because I haven't interpreted your comments that way. Please read my most recent comment in which I've objected to the change you are suggesting, and clearly explained why. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Appreciate your input gorilla. It seems your argument is quite weak because the New York Times, NPR, The Verge, And The Guardian all disagree with you and explicitly explain that gabs defining feature is its “Anything goes speech guidelines, and resulting alt right userbase as a result. Perhaps we can get more input from other users apart from the same 3 people that always edit this article to get more diverse opinion. Megat503 (talk) 23:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Clearly we disagree on that assessment of the sources. I agree that more input from other editors would certainly be useful, though I don't understand why you are preemptively dismissing input from regular editors of the page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Since I have a minute, there is no shortage of sources that describe Gab as a place for far right people and content, and describe the site's stance on "free speech" as just a shield for this. There are even more (not listed here, but happy to provide them if you want them as well) that scare quote "free speech" and similar words/phrases. These strengthen my opinion that we should not uncritically ascribe Gab's userbase to its policies (or lack thereof), especially in the lead:

• "while Gab claims to be all about free speech, this seems to be merely a shield behind which its alt-right users hide." What is Gab? A Bastion of Free Speech or an Alt-Right Echo Chamber?, Proceedings of the Web Conference 2018
  • Study and its results, including the "shield" quote, are also mentioned in a Vice article: Gab Is the Alt-Right Social Network Racists Are Moving to
• "To many people, Torba’s First Amendment absolutism is just a talking point. The site exists less to defend the ideals of Benjamin Franklin than those of Christopher Cantwell. It chose as its logo a creature that looks rather like Pepe, the alt-right attack frog. It courted people on the far right, and it became a haven for them. Free speech can be less a principle than a smokescreen." Goodbye Gab, a Haven for the Far Right, Wired
• "[Gab]'s claim of being a marketplace for free speech is a facade, said Joel Finkelstein, a neuroscientist at Princeton University. Finkelstein directs the Network Contagion Research Institute, a nonprofit that studies how hate spreads online and includes collaborators in the U.S., the U.K., and Europe. 'It’s very clear that free speech is a coded way of saying the alt-right can say what they want,' Finkelstein said." Scientists say Gab, social network with Philly ties, is an incubator of hate, WHYY
• "These extremists hide behind what they openly call 'free speech' but seem to know is simply a public relations campaign hiding violent intent." Gab and 8chan: Home to Terrorist Plots Hiding in Plain Sight, Anti-Defamation League

It is clear that Gab would like to be described this way, but the sourcing does not support it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Gorilla, all those quotes you include like the Princeton professor or the anti-defamation league statement are subjective opinions. Wikipedia is supposed to be objective. Calling gabs policies a shield is subjective as well, because at the end of the day the speech policy is written fact and the shield is a subjective opinion and not factual at all. Megat503 (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Namely, All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. and Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

Your comments about "objectivity" are a misunderstanding I see often. Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content is a valuable essay on this, which I will quote in part: NPOV (Neutral Point of View) is our most sacred policy, yet its use of the word "neutral" is constantly misunderstood by editors and visitors who feel that NPOV occupies some sort of "No Point Of View" middle ground between biased points of view. Points of view and criticisms are by nature not neutral, and all types of biased points of view must be documented, often using biased sources, so the resulting content should not be neutral or free of bias.

The due weight distribution in an article should always mirror the unequal balance usually found between reliable sources. Editors must avoid a false balance because not all points of view are equal. There is no policy which dictates that we cannot document, use, and include "non-neutral" sources, opinions, or facts in an article body or its lead. In fact, we must do this. A lack of such content may be an indication that editors have exercised whitewashing and censorship. It is a serious violation of NPOV to use censorship and whitewashing to remove any non-neutral opinions, facts, biases, or sources. Our job is to document "the sum total of human knowledge,"[2][3] and editors must not leave or create holes in our coverage. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

We’re talking about the leads first sentence gorilla. Wikipedia generally doesn’t add 1 professors opinion in that sentence. Maybe in a “criticism” section of the article it would be appropriate but we are discussing a proposal a for the leads first sentence. Megat503 (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Despite your attempts to portray this as just some fringe opinion of one professor, I think I have pretty clearly outlined that multiple reliable sources have described Gab's "free speech" descriptor as just a shield. I'm not advocating that we add that information to the first sentence, but I am opposing attributing its far-right userbase to it for that reason. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:07, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Alex Jones Hot Link Missing?

Reading the body of the Artile listing prominent personalities using the site, I note that for example Ann Coulter's name is linked to her Wikipedia page, but Alex Jones' name is not. Is this oversight? If intentional, could someone please explain why? 2605:6000:6FC0:25:70F7:DBF:A3F2:E86D (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

It may not be there, we do link to him though.Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

General practice is to only link to a Wikipedia article once in the body. Alex Jones is linked in the 2016 - 2018 section. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)