Talk:Gab (social network)/Archive 11

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. 🤦

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


 * 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)
 * 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) 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)
 * 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 censorshipSelyukh, 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 's suggestion.
 * “If that were the case, they would mention the guidelines/lack of restrictions/etc. in the titles”
 * 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." |format=PDF|journal=Companion 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. 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. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Opening paragraph is blatantly incorrect
It ends with the sentence ′Researchers have written that Gab is "known to be hateful".[27]′, however the phrase does not occur in the reference, do a search and see for yourself..

I'd fix it myself, but you know...I'm not allowed to correct it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.247.4 (talk) 08:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You are correct, I shall remove the quotes. Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I was trying to figure out how that made it in to the article if it's not in the source, since that would be a concerning error on my part—turns out it was in the source, but was removed as the article went through a few revisions. You can see the quote in v1 of the article. No objection to the change made by Slatersteven, though—if a quote was removed from the source I agree it ought not to be included in this Wikipedia article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment from Daveout
could you please specify how exactly my edit goes against this "consensus"? (and I totally agree with here btw.)  -   (talk)  01:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Moved this comment from where it was added to the bottom of /Archive 11 GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * You removed "known for its far-right userbase" from the first sentence of the lead. That wording is based on formal consensus achieved at /Archive 6, and should not be changed without a new RfC. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * i didn't "remove" it, i only changed its place. i tried to condense parts of those 3 sentences in a single one. if you think about it: "known for..." and "widely described as..." aren't that different. keeping both of those similar phrases makes the text unnecessarily repetitive imo. -  (talk)  01:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You did remove it from the first sentence. I will make an edit in a moment that I think might be amenable to both of us, just a second. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Does this achieve what you were trying to do? GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * not exactly but thanks for the compromise anyway. -  (talk)  02:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Rob Monster and Epik
Wasn't Rob Monster and/or Epik an angel investor in Gab? In other words, doesn't Epik own (or owned) a stake in Gab? I know the relationship between Epik and Gab goes beyond simply Epik being the domain registrar. Are there any known and reliable secondary sources covering this issue? Laval (talk) 07:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not that I'm aware of, but if you know of any feel free to add them here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

10stone5
As both Jorm and I have told you, you are making changes that go against what has been repeatedly discussed on this talk page. You are well into edit warring now, and need to stop making changes to the page without discussion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment by 129.135.1.218
GAB IS FREEDOM FROM TECH TYRANTS! WIKIPEDIA IS PROPOGANDA  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.168.56.241 (talk) 07:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC) You are calling all of Gab's userbase far-right wing extremists. If you wan't people to take your little encyclopedia seriously, you should consider publishing accurate information. Allowing the free flow of ideas and information is not extreme. It's what democracy should look like. If you want to ever get more than 2% of users to donate to your site, you need to be impartial, balanced, and transparent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.135.1.218 (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view requires that we represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Can you please explain whether a) you feel that there are other significant views published by reliable sources that present a different viewpoint that needs to be represented in this page, or b) the article does not represent the current sources that are being used? If a), please provide links to the reliable sources that you have found, ensuring they meet the policy on reliable sourcing. If you are unsure, WP:RSP contains a long list of commonly-suggested sources along with the general consensus among the Wikipedia editing community on whether or not they are considered reliable.
 * Please note that the inclusion of the "far-right" descriptor was decided in via RfC, so a new RfC would most likely be needed to establish new consensus. You would need to demonstrate that the sources have shifted considerably in how they describe Gab since that last RfC, and I think you would have a tough time of it–I've seen a number of sources recently during my research on Parler that mention Gab, and they often refer to Gab as even more extremist than Parler.
 * As for your comments about donations, Wikipedia editors do not write articles with the goal of attracting donors, and the promise (or threat to withhold) donations does not and will never influence article content. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read wp:rs and wp:rsp.Slatersteven (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't know anything about this platform until I read today this wikipedia article. I just checked the "Talk" section after reading the first paragraph, I was surprised the way it has be redacted since instead of giving a description of the service/platform (that's what the first paragraph of an article should be) it is full of criticism showing quite a bias. So in my opinion the beginning of the article should be a description of the company and not a criticism to it, there are sections to do so. Elsenyor (talk) 03:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see MOS:LEAD for Wikipedia's guidelines on how lead sections ought to be written. They must summarize the most noteworthy points about a subject (as determined by prominence in reliable sources), which is what is happening here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And reflect the consensus among RS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

You obviously don't care about NPOV or donations. That much is clear. You accuse Parler of being extremist even though nobody was talking about Parler and you ask to cite sources. Here is from Andrew Torba, Founder of Gab himself: "Over the past several weeks I have been openly warning the Gab community to be on the lookout for fedposters and threats or encouragement of violence on Gab. This PSYOP campaign started back in early December with newly created accounts popping up out of nowhere and making threats of violence. We have zero tolerance for this behavior and it is absolutely not free speech.

This has always been our policy. We have thousands of volunteers, customers, and longtime community members who helped us stomp out this PSYOP campaign over the past several weeks and expose it. After this week, it's clear why this PSYOP was started: to take down alt-tech platforms and frame them for the January 6th protests that ended with the police killing an unarmed woman."

Does that sound far-right? Extreme? Antisemetic and violent to you? Free speech may be uncomfortable at times, but what Torba is doing is fostering open discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.117.66.112 (talk) 07:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This talk page is for discussion of specific changes to this article. Please avoid off-topic conversation, including about editors' personal opinions on a topic. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Deleted NEPA Scene article by Rich Howells 8-Jan-2021
Gab, founded in NEPA, named in right-wing social media sites used by Capitol rioters Mentions Moosic, quotes from material found on the Gab website, The storming of Capitol Hill was organized on social media. and other news sources. Ends with saying that Torba now lives in Austin, Texas. Jamplevia (talk) 13:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What change do you think ought to be made to the article based on this source? I am usually hesitant to use deleted sources as references. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The WP article contains content about where Torba is and was but does not mention Austin. Even if you don't use a deleted source that could be used as lead Jamplevia (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not publish information about a BLP with privacy implications based on a deleted source. Torba may not wish people to know where he lives. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

A separate article for the Gab Dissenter browser extension and Gab Dissenter web browser
As I was studying the article, I wondered if this is a case where it would be good to have a separate article that addresses the Dissenter browser extension and the Dissenter browser rather than covering those topics in the Gab (social network) article. The Dissenter article should, of course, be referenced in the Gab (social network) article. There would also need to be a way to disambiguate the Dissenter browser/extension article from the existing article Dissenter. Peacemaker Jeff (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think Dissenter is sufficiently notable for a standalone article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2021
I STRONGLY question the neutrality of the following paragraph which frankly fits the definition of libel. I think this paragraph needs to be eliminated and replaced with a neutrally-worded paragraph.

"Gab is an American alt-tech social networking service known for its far-right and extremist userbase.[3][4][5][6] Widely described as a haven for extremists including neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right, it has attracted users and groups who have been banned from other social networks.[7][8][18] Gab claims to promote free speech and individual liberty, though these statements have been criticized as being a shield for its alt-right and extremist ecosystem.[16][19][20] Antisemitism is prominent among the site's content, and the company itself has engaged in antisemitic commentary on Twitter.[22][23][24] Researchers have written that Gab has been "repeatedly linked to radicalization leading to real-world violent events".[25]"

For example, you could change to: "Gab is an American alt-tech social networking service that appeals to conservative users, especially those unhappy with censorship practices of mainstream social media sites which they see as arbitrary and ideologically biased. Gab claims to promote free speech and individual liberty, but it has seen some controversy over content believed to promote anti-semitism and white supremacy."

---

There are PLENTY of instances where Twitter and Facebook have allowed hate speech and the promotion of mob violence. I highly doubt Wikipedia makes any mention of this in its articles about those sites. Here are just a few examples: https://thefederalist.com/2021/01/10/twitter-hasnt-suspended-these-accounts-or-tweets-that-openly-incite-violence/ 179.6.192.37 (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please provide reliable sources and citations that support your changes.--Jorm (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, this article is about Gab, not Twitter. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

How about providing reliable source claim that it's users are all neo-nazis and alt-right extremists then... This whole description is absolutely asinine. Todaysbanana (talk) 11:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We do not need sources that claim that each and every Gab user is a neo-Nazi and alt-right, because this article does not say that. However, the claims that the article does make, which is that Gab is known for its far-right and extremist userbase, and that it's been widely described as a haven for extremists, are well-sourced inline. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Odd that the sources are mostly left leaning people giving their opinions. So if someone is a far right extremist and has a Facebook, Twitter, any other social media of your liking, we should make the same assertations about them right? I'll check their Wiki pages and see if they're labeled as far right, alt right, extremist safe havens. We all know where this is going and the point being made. Todaysbanana (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to suggest any reliable sources of your own if you feel that there are significant views that have been published by reliable sources that are not reflected here. As for the articles about Facebook and Twitter, if you think changes need to be made to those pages, please suggest them on their respective talk pages (WP:OTHERCONTENT). GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

A dutch citizen with problems on free speech in the USA.
What's on my mind? The first thing on my mind is that you, "admin", as a dutch citizen should keep your mouth where it belongs and quit "locking" wiki pages about a website after you inundated it... With VERY FALSE INFORMATION. FreeSpeechFirst (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in responding to your personal attacks, which I have removed, but I will address the one point of yours that actually involves Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, administrators may not use their administrative capabilities (including page protection) in areas where they are involved, such as on pages they have edited heavily. The administrator who protected this page (confirm), has never edited this page besides enacting administrative changes to page protection, as is proper. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 January 2021
If you will look at the edit history of this page, you'll see that alt-left folk have edited the page to make Gab look like "extremist... neo-nazi..anti-Semitic" due to the political climate to deplatform and to censor free speech... I submit that this page be returned to a pre-2021 state and that it's language reflect objective "matter of fact" encyclopedic language, and not the language of political destruction. 209.152.134.231 (talk) 13:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * At least a dozen people have made this exact claim or something that resembles it, and the popular opinion every time is that the article is just fine as is. Perhaps bring something new to the table, like a source, or actual proof of this. VERSACESPACE 13:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.
 * I'm not sure where you are getting that this page has been changed in the past two weeks "due to the political climate"; you say you've looked at the edit history, but if you had you'd see that the only major changes to the page in 2021 have been to add information about the events at the Capitol. Reliable sources have always described Gab as a home for extremists, and this article has always reflected that. Here's a December 2020 revision and an even earlier January 2020 revision for your perusal, or feel free to browse any of the revisions in the page history. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 January 2021 (2)
Delete all references to Antisemitism. That is a egregious accusation based on less connections than any other social media company. 2601:6C1:380:3560:BCEE:1D13:5E77:71C6 (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. I would recommend reviewing previous discussions on this talk page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Lead sentence "its"
maybe the lead should be tweaked to remove the word "its" infront of the "far right extremist userbase". Perhaps could use the words "allowing" or "welcoming" or "harboring". or maybe go more discriptive. "...service known for taking a hands off approach to its user base, leading to the growth of far right extemist content" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8804:6600:592:ED39:8E55:551C:827C (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Any changes need to be backed by reliable sources. By and large, the RS do not present Gab's userbase as something that just "happened" to Gab, absent any invitation or action on their part, as you are suggesting. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In that case should we use the word "welcoming"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6c1:380:3560:bcee:1d13:5e77:71c6 (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why any verb is needed. I also suspect it would be difficult to find enough sourcing to avoid endless arguments over which verb to use, but if you're going to suggest one, please provide sources to support it like I mentioned above. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm just suggesting a slight tweak to make it sound less like a members group or fraternity. People are obviously coming to the Talk section because they are upset with the tone of this sentence. I dont believe the word "its" is rooted in any source and is probably fine, i just think in order to form a more perfect wikipedia something could be tweaked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8804:6600:592:50a0:e5e2:4b47:875f (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well... it is a members group, you have to sign up. But fair enough, thank you for the suggestion. Perhaps others will be more convinced than I am and weigh in here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with . As she said, it is a members group. According to reliable sources, the majority of users join Gab because of, not in spite of, the extremist content and userbase. I don't think changing the verbiage would really improve the article. Jonmaxras (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please cite these reliable sources. I have frequented Gab over the last week and I believe most are there because they don't feel Twitter is a neutral company anymore. They aren't there for extremist or far-right content. Yewvibes (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Articles reflect reliable sources (provided inline in the article) and past consensus. They do not reflect individual editors' personal opinions of the site's userbase. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Heads up
For talk page watchers: Gab's Twitter account has once again suggested brigading this page: "Reminder: our Wikipedia is overrun by communist antifa sympathizers. If you have a Wikipedia account jump in the talk page and defend free speech and objectivity on our page. They can't stop you all. "

For new editors who are here because of that tweet: Please feel free to suggest any changes you think are needed to this page; you are welcome here. But do please first familiarize yourselves with how Wikipedia articles are written. This is a solid, quick primer. Note that the Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view requires that we represent 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 so if you believe that something on this page is biased, please explain whether a) you feel that there are other significant views published by reliable sources that present a different viewpoint that needs to be represented in this page, or b) the article does not represent the current sources that are being used. If a), please provide links to the reliable sources that you have found, ensuring they meet the policy on reliable sourcing. If you are unsure, WP:RSP contains a long list of commonly-suggested sources along with the general consensus among the Wikipedia editing community on whether or not they are considered reliable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * "Communist antifa"? I guess they're entitled to their fantasies. "They can't stop you all"? Wrong again. They've already been stopped. The article is fully protected.
 * If Gab wants its users to stay in its bubble of ignorance, no problem. Conservapedia is thataway &rarr; https://conservapedia.com &mdash; go there, and leave Wikipedia to continue presenting facts in a well-sourced manner. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In fairness to them, the article was protected due to other issues, before Gab tweeted about editing the talk page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality
The article is not neutral. And talks more about the user generated content of the site rather than the site itself. Even in the lead, which is quite rare for a microblogging website. Neo139 (talk) 03:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * An experienced editor such as yourself should know that you will be required to provide reliable sources that show that your position is accurate or should be given weight. Since you haven't done so, and you have experience, I can only assume that you do not, in fact, have such sources.  Perhaps you should read the talk page archives.--Jorm (talk) 03:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Jorm. I'm not from the US, and the non-neutrality of this article is too obvious for me that I'm outside all this conflict lol. Sources provide facts, which are used in wikipedia, but do not dictate editorial policy. The article should state what the site is first, then it is ok so say what it is used for. For example the article for Hammer "A hammer is a tool consisting of a weighted "head" fixed to a long handle that is swung to deliver an impact to a small area of an object. This can be, for example, to drive nails into wood, to shape metal (as with a forge), or to crush rock.". Things like adding quotes to "free speech" and removing the word microblogging from the first sentence gives me an idea that the article is bias. The sources are ok, is just how the sources were used that gives this article a bias point of view.--Neo139 (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The first sentence of this article explains that Gab is a social networking service. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Cool, but you still need a source for the claims you made.VERSACESPACE 04:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This article is neutral. I will point you to the Wikipedia article on Letterboxd, which heavily discusses the movie-related user generated content in the lead because the service is used for movie reviews and discussion. In this case, Gab is a microblogging social network that is popular among white supremacists and neo-Nazis. The fact that extremists frequent Gab isn't really a debatable position. if you have reliable sources claiming otherwise then, by all means, provide them. Jonmaxras (talk) 07:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As others have said we go with wp:rs not wp:or.Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Pretty much every reliable source out there agrees that Gab is defined by its extremist user base, unlike Twitter, which has a much wider variety of users and as such, is mainly defined by its features instead. That's just my opinion though, and if you want a wider discussion surrounding the neutrality of the Gab article, then I would suggest starting a discussion at WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. X-Editor (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Based on which data? Media have no way to quantify this, and therefore are not a reliable source. They resume the complexity of political influences within social medias to the biased subjectivity of one person. lxndr (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Feel free to suggest the massive change to policy that you are mentioning (excluding media sources from our reliable sourcing policy). Until then, we will go with existing policy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Just read what wikipedia defines as a reliable source, especially this part you seem to have missed: 'The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Definition_of_a_source lxndr (talk)
 * You can argue that, but there comes a point when the vast majority of the sources wikipedia considers reliable having the same viewpoint on a topic, such as that the holocaust killed 6 million jews, that its pretty much indisputable. The same logic can be applied to Gab having a far-right and extremist userbase. As I said before, this is just my opinion and if you want to, you can start a wider discussion on the neutrality of the Gab article by posting about it on WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. X-Editor (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added a section above complaining about a similar issue a few days ago and still think the opening has a quality and neutrality issue. To emphasize, three of the four sources used for the opening sentence explicitly compare Gab to Twitter, yet this is hidden inbetween dozens of sentences repeating the same statements about its content. While I do not disagree that antisemitism, racism and far-right speech is what the platform is mostly noted for, this does not need massive repetition while burying the fact the platform is almost always also explicitly compared to Twitter / named as a microblogging service by a vast majority of sources used in the article. Especially right now most people reading this article are probably looking for it to better understand the platform, i.e. that exact comparison / what kind of social network it is. If this is not considered notable enough, then why is the term "alt-tech"? None of the sources used for the first sentence use that term. I am aware Gab is often considered to be "alt-tech", but how is that more notable than the Twitter comparison / microblogging? --95.90.245.161 (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello again! For others just joining in, 95.90 is referring to . 95, did you see my update to the lead a day ago that was based on your suggestion there? GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, yes, I did! Sorry if this was not the correct way to involve myself in this discussion. Thank you and I agree it definitely improves the article. I just think that there's still possible improvements. E.g. I have seen in the article's history that the term "microblogging" has been removed from the opening sentence a couple of times over the last few days, which I think matches closely what Neo139 is criticizing here as well regarding neutrality. This is well-sourced and should be more visible, in my opinion, as it would give a better description of the platform. --95.90.245.161 (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No apologies needed, you didn't do anything wrong. Just wanted to make sure you'd seen my comment above. I could potentially get behind adjusting the lead sentence to Gab is an American alt-tech microblogging and social networking service... That is what Parler is currently doing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Negative
If you put that Gab is right wing you need to change Twitter to left wing and terrorist countries. MsMeanor (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, we don't. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Take this to the Twitter page. We do not discuss another article here.Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

There's no such thing as an "alt-tech" platform. It's just *a* tech platform. The label "alt-tech" is just a red-herring to imply the site is an "other", since a majority of Wikipedia users hold leftist political beliefs and hate Gab's insistence on free speech. This article claims the site hosts nothing but "Antisemitism" but even a cursory glance at the site shows that's completely false. This article is written in bad faith and reads like propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.188.173.189 (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well RS seem to think it is a real thing.Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality of article and prevalence of far-right extremist views on Gab
I do not believe this article is neutral. Here are the reasons:

1. The leading paragraph of the article (arguably the most important part, considering it is shown in search engines and used to form a preliminary opinion about a service) is not neutral. It claims that Gab is "known for its far-right and extremist userbase". However, there is no reliable and recent article with evidence of the prevalence of far-right and extremist users on the website. The cited articles (which are from 2016, 2017, and 2019) do not include evidence of the prevalence of these users on the platform. All sources "think" there "should" be far-right users on the platform, but again, no evidence that far-right and extremist users are more prevalent on Gab compared to an average social network like Twitter.

2. The CEO, Andrew Torba, has repeatedly and explicitly indicated that he has a zero-tolerance policy for violence. It seems fair that this should be mentioned alongside any allegation of violent content existing on the platform.

3. The CEO has also repeatedly championed an "All are welcome" approach, meaning all viewpoints are welcome to join and contribute. It seems fair to mention this in the leading paragraph to make things more neutral.

4. A section regarding de-platforming and the basis of it happening should also be written to explain how many companies have banned Gab from being able to use their services, effectively taking away their chance to grow and be able to effectively moderate their platform.

On the last note, it's also important to consider that moderation of a social network is an exceptionally hard task. There is no doubt that had Facebook been stumped with millions of political users in its first few years, they would have had just as much trouble moderating. It's important to consider intent vs result when it comes to what sort of content there is on a social network. If Gab is willing to work in good faith to remove rulebreaking content, it is unfair to claim they aren't moderating content, when in reality they don't have the means to do so because of being blacklisted by services that could assist in it.Yewvibes (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please note all changes to Wikipedia articles must be accompanied with reliable sources. To reply in order:
 * The claim that Gab is known for its far-right userbase was established by formal, unanimous consensus at Talk:Gab (social network)/Archive 6. You could certainly begin a new RfC if you like, but you will need to make the argument that sources have shifted away towards describing Gab's userbase as such. A quick skim of recent sources does not make it look like an easy argument to make:
 * "website popular with far-right conspiracy theorists" - NPR, January 7, 2021
 * "social media site used by the far-right" - The New York Times, January 6, 2021
 * "chat forum used by far-right groups" - The Washington Post, December 22, 2020
 * I will also note that you are not likely to have success in introducing arbitrary demands for the sources, such as your above suggestion that they must provide a specific percentage of users who are far-right in order for the claim to be valid.
 * If reliable sources have dedicated significant coverage to Torba's comments on violence, we could potentially include it. Please provide such sources. However, we do not include claims just because they were made by the subject of an article (or in this case the CEO of the subject).
 * See above. We do not "make things more neutral" by introducing false balance; we reflect the proportion of views mentioned in reliable sources.
 * The deplatforming is discussed in the History section—do you mean you feel there ought to be a separate section in addition to that?
 * Regarding the fairness of what has been written in reliable sources, I would suggest you take it up with them. However, on Wikipedia, we neutrally reflect what is published in RS, and we do not introduce our own slant on things because we think coverage of a subject has been unfair. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the word "userbase" implies the quantitative thing (or some rough equivalent for prominence within the forum, if not in the literal head count of users) that is in dispute and that you say is irrelevant. If you want to say Gab is known for the comparative abundance of type X content or type X users compared to other sites, or for being X-friendly, those are different assertions than what is now in the lede, and they correspond more closely to what you quoted from sources.  73.89.25.252 (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't feel like the word "userbase" implies that at all. But again, to change wording that was decided via formal consensus, we would need new formal consensus. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Even if worded as something else like "user population", it is entirely possible for every single neo-Nazi online to use Gab, and only Gab, as the main place for their online Nazi activity, while at the same time statements like "Gab's user population is Nazi" can be false. If one were to say in that hypothetical situation that the site is  known as a home, or the home, for Nazis on the internet, that would be true without any need to determine the truth or falsity of unevidenced further generalizations about the user population as a whole.  The RfC did not address this distinction and was a relatively small number of short opinions about stating a connection to far-right  in the lede; there was no comparison of different wordings or their implications.  It's easily possible to keep the far-right/extremist component without making other logical leaps beyond the sources. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Just leaving a note here so that I don't appear to have abruptly left the conversation: I still don't agree that there's anything that ought to be changed with the wording, but also don't know if there's much use in the two of us continually going back and forth on it more than we already have. Hopefully others will weigh in. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, since you merely say you disagree, but without having addressed the argument, it would be hard to go back and forth less than we have. It's not as though some long and tedious exchange of views finally revealed a philosophical difference, or any difference.  You just happen to LIKEIT as it is.
 * As to the need for a new RfC to change wording, that wording was already changed a few weeks ago (1 Dec 2020) to add "extremist" without discussion. That change is tendentious, but I'm pointing out something orthogonal to it which I think is at the root of your dispute with the OP of this section.  Basically if the first and second sentences of lede were spliced it would be shorter and more accurate: "known as a haven for ...". 73.89.25.252 (talk) 02:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think splitting hairs on the phrase 'its userbase' is particularly helpful; this energy could be used to improve the article in other aspects. Furthermore, Gab (in the company's own words) "...welcomes everyone, but sees a unique opportunity to carve a niche in a massively underserved and unrepresented market. We estimate that there are over 50 million conservative, libertarian, nationalist, and populist internet users from around the world who are seeking an alternative to the current social networking ecosystems.” The company knows exactly what it is doing, and it is not Wikipedia's job to give them (or anyone) plausible deniability. 'Its userbase' is accurate. Jonmaxras (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Splitting hairs is a mischaracterization, since the question of what "userbase" means was quickly removed from the discussion by reformulating the point in terms that don't depend on the particular phrase used for the user population. The issue is the logical leap from Gab being popular with type X users, to Gab being a type X site or having a type X user population, i.e., X reasonably applies to the totality. Several people are raising this problem, and the sources do not seem to make the same leap, this is an interpretation created by the Wikipedia wording, and is easily avoidable.
 * To that, the other poster says he LIKESIT as it is without further comment, and you say improving the first sentence of the lede is unimportant compared to hypothetical other improvements that could be made, which amounts to a second ILIKEIT. Neither answer is responsive to the issue being raised.
 * As to plausible deniability -- what do you imagine they are denying, or misrepresenting? Are you suggesting they actually do not seek to take substantial market share from liberal social media (their 50M estimate) and really want to only have an orders of magnitude smaller userbase of far-far-right, giving up the higher earnings? It seems almost obvious that they want as many users as they can get, that their earlier growth will be far right and later growth closer to the center but still conservative.  73.89.25.252 (talk) 05:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in the fourth sentence of the first paragraph
In the first paragraph, the article claims that "the company itself has engaged in antisemitic commentary on Twitter". However, the provided sources do not sufficiently establish this as fact.

The only provided source that supposedly shows antisemitism on part of the company is a CNN article. However, the quote that is cited from the company is not blatantly antisemitic in nature, and inferences must be made about the author of the quote in order to assume antisemitism on part of the company.

Gab's official account tweeted 'Dude named “Krassenstein” doesn’t support free speech. Imagine my shock.' While some (such as the author of the CNN article) construed this as antisemitism, there is another clear explanation: The Krassenstein brothers (of which there are two) are infamous for their left-wing trolling, a fact which is well-established by multiple sources.

Therefore, an equally likely explanation for the motivation behind the account's tweet is that they were previously aware of the antics of the Krassensteins. Their last name is the important part in identifying the brothers, as the individuals themselves had very similar behavior on Twitter, and there are few other popular people with the surname "Krassenstein". Rather than making an antisemitic statement, the official account could easily be referencing the fact that they were aware of the brothers' trolling, and expected a Krassenstein to be opposed to Gab's existence.

To be in line with Wikipedia's NPOV, I believe it would be proper to change this section of the sentence to "the company itself has engaged in commentary that some have construed as antisemitic". This is a statement that is established by the sources, but also does not make a definitive stance on something that is inherently ambiguous in nature.

JamesChaney (talk) 02:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The CNN article is quite clear that "the company has itself taken part in anti-Semitic commentary". If there was another reliable source challenging this descriptor, that would be one thing, but the fact that you personally disagree with the descriptor isn't really something we can go on. We require reliable sources for any changes.
 * I'll also note that the CNN article references multiple tweets, not just the one you've quoted. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I believe the three sources I gave provide sufficient context to challenge the claim made by CNN.


 * I am not asking that the reference to the information provided by CNN be removed, I simply think that the sentence should be reworded to more properly represent a NPOV.


 * The other tweet that the CNN article referenced is a bible verse, Revelation 3:9 NIV: "I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars--I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you."


 * This verse speaks about those "who claim to be Jews though they are not" - this seems to be attacking hypocrites, not Jewish people (if anything, it is defending "real" Jews), and so I do not think even in the context of the CNN article it was meant to be provided as evidence of antisemitism.


 * JamesChaney (talk) 03:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources you have provided do not mention Gab. Contradictory RS would be sources that specifically contradict the claim that Gab has engaged in antisemitic commentary. We cannot do our own interpretation of the tweets as a contradiction of a RS's interpretation, that is WP:OR. I disagree that the wording needs to be changed when it is stated so clearly in a quality RS, but I've been on the "losing" side of consensus before and certainly will respect any consensus that forms. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * You confuse opinions with facts. If CNN says that something is antisemitic, it doesn't mean it's a fact that's something is antisemitic. It's just CNN's opinion. Av824 (talk) 07:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC){ — Av824 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * There was another tweet with a famous bible quote about "synagogue of Satan", but that too requires some inferences to make it anti-Semitic. I think it is more likely than not that some form of negative generalization about Jews was both intended and transmitted by some of those tweets, and that more such social media messages will come to light imminently now that Gab is in the spotlight, but Wikipedia should not launder weakly founded accusations in soi-disant RS such as CNN which have been pervasively wrong in their coverage of all things right-wing. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you would like to discuss the general reliability of CNN for right-wing topics, feel free to begin a new discussion at WP:RSN, but the Wikipedia editing community has already established that "There is consensus that news broadcast or published by CNN is generally reliable... Some editors consider CNN biased, though not to the extent that it affects reliability." That's the consensus we'll go with until a new discussion results in a different conclusion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm amply familiar with what passes for RS policy here, and am just pointing out that in this particular case, if people are "here to build an encyclopedia" and not an amplification engine for third party propaganda, we could ease up on the accusations of anti-semitism until the army of social media investigators finishes its feverish dredging in the next few days. If they come up with nothing new on Gab, probably not antisemitic ideologically or as a company. Evidence on people affiliated with the company may well develop (I'm guessing highly likely) and will be reported on just as feverishly as it was dug up but that's at at least one remove from the corporation. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 03:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not at all appreciate your sidelong insult that I am working to build "an amplification engine for third party propaganda". Please keep it civil. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It was not a comment on any individual and I certainly was not thinking of any specific person. It is, however, a description of the result of deferring to RS policy as a reason to avoid analysis of particular cases. If we write whatever CNN writes, and on Wikipedia that typically means a leftward biased selection from already leftist CNN, just because CNN happens to have provided us that opportunity by publishing, (and sources on the right are disproportionately un-RS'ed), then Wikipedia functions as a political amplifier for one side.  That obviously is relevant to articles about entities like Gab at the center of political struggles of the moment. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 03:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia functions as a political amplifier for one side. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It exists to provide neutral content from independent, reliable sources. Consensus has been reached by multiple contributors that CNN is a reliable source. "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors.". If you can find an independent, reliable source that clearly states against and challenges the descriptor, then please post it. However, Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say, not what you think. — Yours, Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 08:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Reliable source (in the Wikipedia sense of those words) is not a license to copy anything at all from CNN articles without judging the content, especially when that content is subjective, tendentious, pertains to BLP or is potentially defamatory. Wikipedia is very much based on what we think of what reliable sources say, not an exercise in indiscriminately duplicating those statements.  CNN was deemed reliable for "news", which I take to mean facts (such as the tweets) when there is no compelling indication the reported facts are false, and some leeway but not unlimited freedom in the subjective interpretation and interpolation from those facts.  In this case, if you read the CNN article there are several points where they make large, and apparently motivated, leaps from facts to interpretations and we are not compelled to mindlessly accept every instance of such. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 07:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, CNN is a reliable source, but it's hardly a neutral source, and I think that's what confuses the IP editor above, who seems to think that anything "leftist" cannot possibly be reliable. There are "rightist" reliable sources too. Wikipedia uses them. Regarding CNN, for the past five years, CNN has had a fixation: all-Trump, all the time, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, with brief forays into other news like natural disasters when they arise. But they do report facts, and they don't make stuff up. That's what makes them reliable. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * CNN covers Trump, because Trump manages to make himself news, and because of the Fox Effect (Link is a Youtube video but it is from Vox, which is a Green RS according to WP:RSP). And CNN is centrist or barely-center-left at most. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, not really: https://www.adfontesmedia.com/ - CNN isn't "barely center left". That chart has been cited in plenty of reliable sources. The research methodology used to create it is as good as one can expect. I remember reading that InfoWars was incensed by it and published their own rebuttal chart in response, based on their own editorial opinion. I also find it interesting that Associated Press, Reuters, and The Weather Channel are ranked the most neutral and most reliable of all sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ad Fontes Media is not considered a WP:RS, partly due to its WP:FALSEBALANCE problem. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Nobody claimed it's a reliable source (in fact it's generally unreliable at WP:RSP]). Certainly we cannot cite it here. Reliable sources have given it non-negative attention. It's a meta-source and a useful tool. Their methodology is questionable but nobody else has done anything better. The false balance problem exists only in the totality of the chart, and could be removed if they offered a way to filter against audience size. My point is that the position of CNN in that chart seems accurate based on my own observations. Both AP and Reuters are reliable and neutral (as is the Weather Channel). Fox is unreliable and right-wing. CNN is a more reliable than Fox and closer to center but still somewhat left-leaning. Compared to AP and Reuters, CNN isn't centrist. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is still WP:FALSEBALANCE and your assumption that the "center" can be determined accurately from the extreme asymmetric polarization scenario that exists in the USA. AP and Reuters tend center-right, if one analyzes them on an international scale. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If it is only one RS attribute it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

2018 study
"Another research study in late 2018 concluded that Gab is filled with extremist users..." is not from, it is from , please replace it. Wikisaurus (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Looks like the ADL cite was accidentally inserted into that paragraph. I've removed it, which should make it clear that the citation at the end of the paragraph is the study in question. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

New sources
The article is still fully protected so I'm not adding this directly, but when that expires we should probably make use of some of the information in this recent WSJ article, which describes Gab's hosting setup.

GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Also, from The Hill:
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Both of those are worth a couple of sentences in the article, and no one would complain that the WSJ is "leftist". No objection from me if you want to add them; this is just non-controversial reporting. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * From USA Today:
 * (Just a partial quote, the whole article has content that may be usable.)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Question about growth and potentially changing demographics
This is more a question about Wikipedia policies than the article itself, but it was this article that made me consider it so I'll ask here.

In the week since Trump was banned from Twitter, Gab has been experiencing massive growth. Most of these new users, while unquestionably right wing, don't seem to show white supremacist tendencies. Obviously this is anecdotal evidence and has no place in the article, but it did make me wonder about sources remaining relevant. If Gab grows and becomes the defacto social media platform for the right, edging out the white supremacists via dilution, is the ADL's study of the demographics still considered relevant until another study contradicts it? If not, is it time since the study was conducted that disqualifies it, or growth?

Again, this is more a question about sources than any critique of the article as it stands. The ADL's study is still perfectly adequate as a source. I just figured this would be a decent enough place to ask clarification. DawnOfTheLed (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , If that should indeed be the case, and if it is notable enough, then reliable mainstream sources and newspapers (perhaps even scientific studies) will no doubt pick it up. When that happens, Wikipedia will report it :) as soon as there are any published, high quality sources to back such a claim up. Until then, we have to play the waiting game and make do with what is already published. Cheers Mvbaron (talk) 09:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Mvbaron, fair enough. Thanks for the quick reply DawnOfTheLed (talk) 09:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Protection
I think the rash of IP shanigans means we need PP, agreed?Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, PP is needed here over pending changes, at least for a few weeks. Britishfinance (talk) 13:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds sensible to me. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There are only 4 kinds of protection available for this article: semi, pending-change, extended-confirmed, and full. Semi protection expired today, but pending change protection (PCP) is still active indefinitely. In my view, PCP is a waste of everyone's time. It doesn't prevent disruptive edits and reviewers still have to clean things up. Escalating semi to a longer duration would be the best approach, I think. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems like is as they are still at it it seems.Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The article is now semi-protected for another three years, but that didn't prevent this. If more of that continues from accounts with more than 10 edits and more than 5 days old, then extended-confirmed protection may be warranted. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that . Britishfinance (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Policy + CEO
After reading the wiki on Gab, I’m struck by how biased it reads. There already seems to be comments in the edits section arguing whether certain paragraphs should be kept. For neutrality sake, I’d argue two sections need to be added with original sources from the Gab site. One is on Andrew Torba as he is referenced repeatedly and is the CEO. I would suggest citing his own words on Gab about who he says he is and why he created Gab before getting into the history of him being banned to where the company is now from other sources. That can be found here: https://news.gab.com/2020/11/28/who-is-gab-founder-andrew-torba/ From the source, these could be added and mixed in with other sources: “Andrew Torba is a 30 year old Christian entrepreneur and American Populist from northeastern Pennsylvania. He is the founder and CEO of Gab.com, the free speech social network.” “After witnessing the rise of online censorship during the 2016 election, Torba left Silicon Valley and started Gab.com to launch the alt-tech revolution in August of 2016.” “Since leaving Silicon Valley and launching Gab, Andrew Torba has been relentlessly smeared by Big Tech, the mainstream media, academics, members of the U.S. Congress, foreign governments, and the political establishment for refusing to censor first amendment-protected political speech. As a result of Torba’s free speech principles, both Gab and Andrew have been no-platformed and banned by 25+ service providers over the years including both App Stores, multiple payment processors, and hosting providers. Torba himself has been personally banned from online banks, cryptocurrency exchanges, and Twitter for many years now. His family is also blacklisted by VISA.“

The second section I would suggest is on policy. Strangely, there’s a section on design but I would think its policy would be more important to those who wish to know about it or use gab social. This is their policy that they describe:

https://news.gab.com/2019/08/23/gabs-policies-positions-and-procedures-for-unlawful-content-and-activity-on-our-social-network/

“Our terms of service absolutely ban all illegal content, including threats, as influenced by American speech laws as well as American legislation and court rulings on the subject. Gab’s mission is to be the home of free speech online. We protect the speech and anonymity rights of all people, all around the world, from every race, religion, ideology, and creed. To suggest Gab is anything other than a neutral technology platform, which anyone in the world can sign up for, is an insult our tens of millions of law-abiding community members. We seek to export American values and freedom to the maximum extent permitted by American law to internet users around the world. Offensive speech and unpopular speech are protected by both our rules and by American law. Illegal speech, such as a threat, is absolutely not and has never been allowed on Gab. We have zero tolerance for lawbreakers on our platform.”

I just think adding some of the original source may help with what others are describing as a clear bias. I’m not saying you have to take out the history the company had with controversy or with some of its users but that generally isn’t the majority of how Facebook or Twitter is described on wiki.

47.185.19.247 (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I would direct you to WP:MANDY as to why using someone's own words who is involved in controversy is not best practice, and WP:OTHERSTUFF as to why this article is different from Facebook and Twitter. Gab is a different company who has received different coverage. We publish what is written in reliable sources, not press releases from people who want to sugarcoat what they do. Jonmaxras (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don’t quite understand why the gab site is not a good source. They specifically describe how they apply their rules. My citations aren’t press releases, though they often do respond to the ADL and others through email and press releases. And what exactly are you suggesting he sugarcoats?

If you do not want to use Gab as a source, though, business insider also spells out much of what is already cited. https://www.businessinsider.com/gab-reports-growth-in-the-midst-of-twitter-bans-2021-1?op=1

“Torba describes himself as a "Christian entrepreneur and American populist" from Pennsylvania who formerly worked in Silicon Valley. He said he's been "relentlessly smeared by Big Tech, the mainstream media, academics, members of the U.S. Congress, foreign governments, and the political establishment for refusing to censor first amendment-protected political speech." “Torba personally has also been barred from online banks, cryptocurrency exchanges, and Twitter, and his family is blacklisted by Visa.” “Gab has been banned by more than 25 service providers. In 2017, Google removed Gab's app from the Google Play Store for violating its hate-speech policy, and it was rejected from Apple's App Store for related reasons.”

I don’t see why these can’t be included in some capacity. 47.185.19.247 (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.185.19.247 (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Dear IP: please read the WP:ABOUTSELF policy, which states that self-published sources may only be used as sources on themselves provided (A) the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim) and (B) there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. A supplement to this is the essay Mandy Rice-Davies Applies, which describes the exact nature of why WP:ABOUTSELF claims made by entities such as Gab are suspect because they are unduly self-serving in the "well they would say that, wouldn't they" sense.
 * As for other items, Business Insider is currently at yellow status at Reliable sources/Perennial sources, with a current RFC at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard where strong arguments have been made to doubt its reliability. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Agreed, especially citing the business insider source. This would be a markable improvement to the page. 160.2.143.157 (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This seems like kind of a lot of information about Torba for an article that's not really about him. And while the argument could potentially be made to include more biographical information about Torba, we absolutely should not be basing it off of what he has to say about himself. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

That’s fair enough. I did find a fox business source which cites much of the same stuff on Torba just worded differently. I noticed fox is in the green status except for politics. I also think edits should be added about the shooter and the white nationalist in regards to what actions gab took. That is cited in the same fox business source: https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/what-is-gab “Gab.com is a controversial social media website and app founded on the premise of promoting free speech in 2016 by Andrew Torba. The social media platform "champions free speech, individual liberty and the free flow of information online" in accordance with U.S. law, according to its website. The website's content policies and algorithms differ from its competitors, Twitter and Facebook, due to its focus on free speech.“ “Gab suspended the account belonging to Robert Gregory Bowers, the man charged with killing 11 people at a Pittsburgh synagogue last month, shortly after the attack. The site said it backed up all user data for that account and notified the FBI.” “Christopher Cantwell, a leading white nationalist figure who has one of the largest followings on Gab, posted an anti-Semitic message Sunday after the site was back online. He has since been banned from the website.” “PayPal and Stripe cut off access to Gab in response to the news. Torba also said on June 19 that Visa had "blacklisted" him and his wife.”

47.185.19.247 (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * This would be a significant improvement. --160.2.143.157 (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * First, I very much appreciate such specific suggestions for the information you think ought to be added, which are quite a lot easier for us to work with than more vague points.
 * Quite a lot of the information you are suggesting, however, is already in the article, and the source you provide is already used as a source. To reply in order to your quotes:
 * The information about when Gab was founded and by whom is already in the article. So is the fact that Gab describes itself as a promoter of free speech and individual liberty. I could see potentially adding information about how the algorithms and policies differ from those of Twitter and Facebook, but I don't think simply stating that they differ adds much information. Unfortunately it doesn't look like this source goes into detail on what any of the differences are, but if such sourcing could be found it might be usable.
 * The fact that Gab suspended Bowers' account and notified the FBI is already included in Gab (social network). I will add the point about them backing up the data—I think it was somewhat implied, given that it would be extremely bizarre for Gab to 1. suspend the account, 2. permadelete any data they might have of Bowers', and then 3. contact the FBI, but it can't hurt to be more specific.
 * The specific antisemitic comment of Cantwell's that is mentioned in the Fox article is not mentioned in this article, but Cantwell is mentioned several times, and a message of his in which he uses the triple parentheses is quote. The fact that he was banned from Gab following the Christchurch shootings is already mentioned.
 * PayPal's and Stripe's various bannings of Gab are mentioned in this article, actually in more detail than they are mentioned in the Fox article. Stripe suspended Gab's account due to unrelated concerns prior to the shooting (see Gab (social network)), then terminated services completely with Gab afterwards (see Gab (social network)). PayPal's termination of services is also mentioned in the latter section. Thanks for the point on the Visa claim—I had actually noticed that Torba was claiming this a while back but couldn't find a source at the time (see Talk:Gab (social network)/Archive 10). I shall add it. I have a terrible memory; I actually added that information based on this very source back in August. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate the follow-up. 47.185.19.247 (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC) In regards to your first bullet point about what differences can be made between Gab and other social media sites, I have found a source if it is deemed reliable. It makes a few distinctions that can be added if they’re not already stated: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/what-is-gab-the-far-right-social-media-site-that-google-and-apple-banned-and-that-is-still-gaining-thousands-of-new-users-after-twitter-and-facebook-deplatformed-trump/ar-BB1cF7Wu

“Gab was bred out of a desire to escape Twitter's moderation policies on false information and hate speech. Cofounder and CEO Andrew Torba told Buzzfeed News in late 2017 he had become fed up with how major social media websites censor people's posts. "What makes the entirely left-leaning Big Social monopoly qualified to tell us what is 'news' and what is 'trending' and to define what 'harassment' means?" Torba said. Gab looks a lot like both Twitter and Reddit, as the New York Times reported, and posts - called "gabs" - are capped at 300 characters.”

“Like other far-right alternatives, such as Parler, Gab markets itself as being committed to free speech. Gab's online rules prohibit some types of posts, like threats of violence and illegal pornography. But other than that, it uses little moderation and doesn't restrict posts that might be widely considered to be misleading or to qualify as hate speech. It does give users an option to mute posts that they find offensive.”

The free speech part has already been mentioned, I understand. What could be added, I suppose, is that it was created “to escape Twitter’s moderation policies on false information and hate speech.” The gab and the 300 characters could be mentioned as one such difference.

The main differences in how they apply their rules can actually be found on the gab site. Somebody already stated the original source isn’t something to be used, though. Not sure if I can find it anywhere else yet. https://news.gab.com/2019/08/23/a-note-on-foreign-data-disclosures/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.185.19.247 (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC) 47.185.19.247 (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * MSN is just syndicating a Business Insider piece: . As IHateAccounts has pointed out, there is no consensus on the reliability of Business Insider. Even if it was a reliable source, we have to be careful about how much weight we give to statements by Gab's CEO about Gab. And yes, we shouldn't be using Gab's own statements about itself. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Bruh that first paragraph is so pathetic
Like seriously we need to fix this, I get some people may not like this app. But you have to remember some people do. It’s not right to talk about this like that. BSAEagle5000 (talk) 16:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We go with what RS say, if any RS dispute what we say please provide them. It does not matter if some people like them people like all kinds of crap (literally).Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems the point being made is that it's a highly popular site, especially after the twitter bans on the President of the United States, and the article is in incredibly poor shape. 160.2.143.157 (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We go with what RS say, if any RS dispute what we say please provide them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Undue weight in heading
The opening paragraph of the article could be vastly improved. As stands the heading just redundantly repeats extremism each sentence repeating the same idea ad nauseum. For instance:

"known for its far-right and extremist userbase" and "Widely described as a haven for extremists" in the first line is just repetitive.

Clear example of WP:UNDUE. You'd think the heading was written by twitter to discourage competition. This article should probably have banners citing it's neutrality is questioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.2.143.157 (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * These statements are sourced to numerous reliable sources, four of which in a footnote directly after the sentence. If you would like to suggest changes to the article please do so by providing specific changes equally supplied by references to reliable sources. Cheers Mvbaron (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I was simply pointing out that that same sentence is repeated over and over in the lead and is WP:UNDUE. For example: "known for its far-right and extremist userbase"and "Widely described as a haven for extremists" and "users seeking alternatives to mainstream social media platforms." are all repetitions of the first sentence ("Gab is an American alt-tech social networking service known for its far-right and extremist userbase"). An improvement to the lead would read something like "Gab is an American alt-tech social networking service and microblogging platform founded by Andrew Torba that launched publicly in May 2017 and is described as similar to twitter. It is known for its far-right and extremist userbase. Due to it's claim to promote free speech and individual liberty Gab is widely described as a haven for extremists including neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right, as it has attracted users and groups who have been banned from other social media and users seeking alternatives to mainstream social media platforms." --160.2.143.157 (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. Just because there are several sources reporting something, it doesn't mean that the information needs to repeated again and again. -  (talk)  19:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that the anon's suggested change is an improvement. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see the improvement. The first three sentences in the lead talk about different things (the first is a succinct summary of why Gab is notable, the second talks about why it has attracted that specific group of people and the third about what Gab says they do. Additionally, the suggested sentence "Due to it's claim to promote free speech and individual liberty Gab is widely described as a haven for extremists" doesn't make sense, Gab is not described a haven for extremists *because* they claim to promote free speech. Mvbaron (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, Gab is widely described as a haven for extremists because a lot of extremists hang out there. Moreover, downplaying the criticism of the claims about promoting free speech and individual liberty fails to reflect the available sources and to summarize the main text of the article. I'm not entirely sold on the lead as it stands (the comparison to Twitter might be undue weight or redundant with calling it a microblogging platform), but I'm not quite seeing how the suggested text is an improvement. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And a lot of "extremists" hang out their *because* they claim to promote free speech (since they have been banned off of other platforms, likely for their speech). This is clearly stated by many of the linked sources. If you think the over mentioning of extremism and such in the lead over the details of the site is WP:DUE please explain --160.2.143.157 (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Saying that Gab is widely described as a haven for extremists because of it's [sic] claim to promote free speech still misrepresents the situation. At the very least, it skips a step: claim to promote free speech -> extremist user base -> described as a haven for extremists. Omitting the middle link in the chain makes it sound like a haven for extremists is a smear, rather than the description it is. I've no objection to tweaking the phrasing to reduce the repetition of "extremist", on the general editing grounds that repeated words can make for awkward reading, but we have to maintain accuracy. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well in fact it's something like: claim to promote free speech <-?-> do nothing against extremists in the user base -> unsurprisingly have an extremist user base -> described as a haven for extremists. The first (self-description) is pretty much irrelevant to the latter (factual) steps, but of course may be included in the article. Mvbaron (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd agree, an improvement would read: "Due to its claim to promote free speech and individual liberty, Gab has as attracted users and groups who have been banned from other social media and users seeking alternatives to mainstream social media platform. Due to this Gab is widely described as a haven for extremists" --160.2.143.157 (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC).
 * No, we cannot suggest that all these extremists just happened to show up at Gab because Gab adopts a "free speech" ethos. Such a claim has been directly challenged in RS, for example in Wired: "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." GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree, you can't just claim that extremist showed up without the claim it was first a place for free speech. The first words of the cited Wired article: "AT ITS BIRTH, the social network Gab issued a call for free speech. “We promote raw, rational, open, and authentic discourse online,"" The part of the article you quoted is usubstantiated opinion: "To many people, Torba’s First Amendment absolutism is just a talking point. " (emphasis added). Which part of the article is more reliable? --160.2.143.157 (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact that Gab billed itself as a "'free speech' alternative to social networking sites Twitter and Facebook" is already mentioned in the article, and I'm not arguing that should be removed. I am simply saying that we cannot add a sentence like you are suggesting, because that description of causation has been challenged in RS. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is clearly contradicted in the Wired article above. Gab was not a "haven" for "extremists" and then a "free speech" platform. It was billed as a "free speech" platform (read the Wired article) which led to it being a "haven" for "extremists". However, you could make an argument to say "Gab was intended to be a social networking platform that provides a haven for extremism online. Gab does this by billing itself as a free-speech social network". But to do so you have to know the intent of Andrew Torba the creator, and nothing in the article sourced his intent on extremism over free-speech. --160.2.143.157 (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Where did I say that Gab was a haven for extremists before it was a free speech platform? I don't know if I'm being clear. I am simply trying to say that we cannot imply the causation that your sentence ("Due to its claim to promote free speech and individual liberty, Gab has as attracted users and groups who have been banned from other social media and users seeking alternatives to mainstream social media platform. Due to this Gab is widely described as a haven for extremists") suggests, because there are RS that suggest the platform intentionally attracted this demographic. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The context of Gab as a free-speech social network is only mentioned as criticism to it also courting those on the far-right, which seems to give undue weight to the unsourced part of the article stating "To many people (who?)" than the leading line. --160.2.143.157 (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is proper weighting to say that a) Gab calls itself a free speech network, and b) that descriptor has been criticized for being a shield for its ecosystem. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's what free speech is. I'm sure there's a place in the article to mention that some people criticize it for that, maybe under a criticism section? --160.2.143.157 (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think the way this is written is good, clearly the most important thing about Gab is that it claims to be for free speech and people criticize it for that as a shield to protect it's users/eco-system. --160.2.143.157 (talk) 00:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:CRITS. But regardless of where it goes in the article text, the lead must summarize the content of the article, and so should include a noteworthy criticism. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Given that "far-right" is by definition an extremist position, I wouldn't necessarily object to adjusting the first sentence to "Gab is an American alt-tech social networking service known for its far-right and extremist userbase", unless there is some indication that there is some group of not-far-right extremists that Gab is also known for keeping around. I'll go ahead and WP:BOLDly make the change, though feel free to revert if you think it needs more discussion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you quoted the existing sentence rather than the one you changed it to. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's what it already is (so thus redundant as you explained). 160.2.143.157 (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Whoops, thanks XOR. That strikethrough (now added, as I intended) was slightly important for clarity. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

What is the Wikipedia politburo for this page?
What does it take to get the bias corrected on this page? I am new and this Wikipedia interface is terrible.

The very first sentence is wildly biased. The "service known for its "far-right userbase"? Ridiculous.  Why not describe the service before being political and judgmental.  The sources for the first sentence are these leftists anti-conservative sources without ONE objective source: (1) NY times -- leftist (2) The Verge -- far left (3) NPR -- lefist, (4) The observer -- far left.

Will Wikipedia ever stop relying upon ordinary simpleton journalists who rely upon anonymous sources for stories?

"Antisemitism is prominent among the site's content, and the company itself has engaged in antisemitic commentary on Twitter." Ridiculous - I have been using it for 1 month and seen no anti-semitism.

Add this sentence as second to alleviate your anti-conservative bias: Center and right of center users have been pushed out of Twitter due its Corporate Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_censorship of allegedly politically incorrect opinions.

Whoops, Aljazerra -- a muslim anti-america, anti-democracy site criticized wikipedia's anti-american position https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/1/11/a-bad-sign-world-leaders-and-officials-blast-twitter-trump-ban — Preceding unsigned comment added by KManG (talk • contribs) 06:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Who decides and fixes the leftist bias of this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KManG (talk • contribs) 06:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Editors who can find an RS to support their edit.Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If Wikipedia actually had a Politburo, surely the site would have much more Sovietwave. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Copying my comment from above, since you've duplicated your complaints:
 * If you have reliable sources that take a different view on Gab, or contradict the current sourcing, please provide them. You seem to be under the (very common) misconception that biased sources are not usable on Wikipedia, which is not the case: Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. (WP:BIASEDSOURCE)
 * Please note that the all of these sources are considered to be reliable by consensus of the Wikipedia editing community. Please also note that for sources that have bias to a point where it may affect their reliability, or where statements should be or may need to be attributed, that is noted at WP:RSP (for examples, see the entries for WP:RSP, WP:RSP, etc.). That is not the case for any of these:
 * "Most editors consider The New York Times generally reliable." (WP:RSP)
 * "There is broad consensus that The Verge is a reliable source for use in articles relating to technology, science, and automobiles." (WP:RSP)
 * "There is consensus that NPR is generally reliable for news and statements of fact." (WP:RSP)
 * "There is consensus that The Guardian is generally reliable... Some editors believe The Guardian is biased or opinionated for politics." (WP:RSP)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Removal of Citation #3
Asking that citation #3 be removed from this article.

Hess, Amanda (November 30, 2016). "The Far Right Has a New Digital Safe Space". The New York Times. Archived from the original on December 3, 2016. Retrieved December 3, 2016.

1) This article by NYT has been archived.

2) NYT has been accused of liberal bias which is painfully clear has spilled over into this biased article on GAB.

Times public editor Arthur Brisbane wrote in 2012: When The Times covers a national presidential campaign, I have found that the lead editors and reporters are disciplined about enforcing fairness and balance, and usually succeed in doing so. Across the paper's many departments, though, so many share a kind of political and cultural progressivism — for lack of a better term — that this worldview virtually bleeds through the fabric of The Times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times#Accusations_of_liberal_bias

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveengel (talk • contribs) 18:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC) — Steveengel (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Can you explain what you mean when you say it's been archived? It's appearing like any other NYT article when I click on it, and I'm not seeing any mention of "archiving".
 * As for your point two, please refer to WP:BIASEDSOURCE: Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Also see WP:RSP: Most editors consider The New York Times generally reliable. If you would like to propose that the NYT is so biased that it cannot be used as a reliable source, that is a discussion to have at WP:RSN. It is an extremely widely-used source and generally regarded as in the top tier of media sources, so until a new consensus is achieved to override the past discussions about its reliability, we will go with consensus. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ok, looks like i was wrong about it being archived. Steveengel (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC) — Steveengel (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.