I'm excited! I have one question though. Are comments made with Dissenter visible for all internet users or only for those who installed the extension? If the latter is true, I don't see the point in all this.
It's simply not possible to have a censorship free comment section. There are many ways comments can be illegal, such as inciting violence, or trafficking child porn. Gab will still have to draw a line somewhere, defining what it won't allow
I recognize it's a good idea to move the censor decisions from who currently has them. But whoever the censor is will still be human, and capable of failure.
We as a society already agreed upon "a line", it is the line of what is legal, and what is not. And that line is constantly being refreshed by mostly reasonable people in a mostly fair due process. Gab is using this line as are other new emerging platforms, old social media giants don't. They censor because of political and financial reasons. Reddit is already one of them. Fuck them
I don't believe it's so clear cut, what is legal and what is not. Even if gab intends only to censor what is illegal, they will inevitably have to make decision around what they believe is illegal. And that may not agree with others.
Still I prefer it that way, rather than tech giants making decisions based on what they believe is moral. I'm just trying to point out that this "fix" while better, is not perfect.
There are currently people working on a decentralized message board system called 0xchan which cannot be censored
Try another browser. I have no issues using it with Firefox, Chrome or Opera.
**EDIT:** You have to click on the icon on the toolbar to see the comments. In Firefox, if you have a lot of extensions, you may need to customize the toolbar to drag it to the spot you need it to see it.
Ahhh. It is a tool of the alt-right. Voting for Jill Stein ("the wrong woman" in a state Trump couldn't win) qualified me as a misogynist alt-righter by the types of people doing the censoring so maybe these Gab folks are my people.
It sure will. And we judge people by their companions. I don't think it is wise to create a stronger link between the MRM and people who have been thrown out of the normal social networking sites for their racist, fascist, extremist speech, support of pedophilia and anti-semitism, or generally antisocial behavior.
>Wikipedia has its own biases.
The #1 contributing member of wikipedia said in his AMA the following:
>Systemic bias, especially...and that takes many forms. The gender gap gets is the most prominent, for good reason...not even 18% of the biographical articles on the English Wikipedia are about women, and that's actually better than it was a few years ago. But there are other types, too - geographic is also pervasive.
**Gab (social network)**
Gab is an English-language social media website, known for its mainly far-right user base. The site has been described as "extremist friendly" or a "safe haven" for neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right. The site allows its users to read and write multimedia messages of up to 3,000 characters, called "gabs". It has stated that conservative, libertarian, nationalist and populist internet users were its target markets.Gab promotes itself as a vehicle for "free speech"; this has been criticized by scholars as "merely a shield behind which its alt-right users hide", and "an echo chamber for right-leaning content dissemination".
^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/MensRights/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^]
^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28
Arguments would be a lot stronger if we stopped trapping ourselfs in ecochambers and challenging ourselves. On subjects that don't get censorred like economics and social services the left is a lot stronger.
Hmmm, last I checked my ideology didn't kill 100 million citizens of their own regimes
Last I checked my ideology didn't result in man made famines, starvation, an over bearing police stat.
Last I checked my ideology didn't preach a violent revolution against those who worked for what they have by violent ignorant thugs too stupid to understand the idiocy they preach leads to the destruction of native culture, the eradication of national identity, and enslaving the masses to a handful of psychotic murderers who live at the center of the faux-religious cult of personality.
Get the fuck out of here with that bullshit.
There are counties which practise alot of heavy socialistic politics which don't do any of this. The scandanivian have socialistic policies and they are able to interact with the free market the same as every other country. A socialistic country doesn't have to be a violent one.
Socialism has its pros and cons, capitalism has its pros and cons. Capitalism had practically ruined our planet with my scientists saying that our planet is going to go to irreversible climate change due to the greed of politicians and countries. Socialism could have prevented this.
Capitalism leaves thousands of people homeless and quite often because of reasons completely out of their control.
Capitalism has a war culture where countries make a profit going to war over "Weapons of mass destruction".
Capitalism leaves millions of its citizens to die to to massive medical bills which they can never hope to pay.
As I said, socialism has pros and cons, capitalism has pros and cons. Socialism doesn't have to result in a violent controlling country. Capitalism can also fall into the trap of monitering their citizens. Look at all the scandals which have come out in the fbi keeping track of people through their pc Web cams.