Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The analysis did not include traffic to the two-month-old Infowars app or views of videos that Mr. Jones posted on Twitter, where his accounts remain active. He also still shares posts inside private Facebook groups, and his followers repost his content from their social-media accounts. But data suggest that those sources of traffic are smaller than Mr. Jones’s main Facebook and YouTube pages.
That Facebook and Google, which owns YouTube, muffled one of the internet’s loudest voices so quickly illustrates the tremendous influence a few internet companies have over public discourse and the spread of information.
Those in fear, speculate while writing a book.
Why avoid the facts and you all would not have to fantasize with speculation.
My hope is that you can explain some things since you pay attention to all of this.
Will it be free like other social media? Why or why not?
If a "Fundamental Muslim Social Media" in the USA free speech if it reflects approx. the same level hate that these new social media sites do? That is - as long as the SITE ITSELF or the hosts or admins do not directly participate after the mob has organize, they shouldn't be held to any standard, right?
I was hoping to have a sane conversation about these two items - for starters. You have to have a plan in order to succeed. I doubt the Constitution says "Free Speech for Whites and Guns and Dog Whistles but none for others".
My hope is that you can explain some things since you pay attention to all of this.
Will it be free like other social media? Why or why not?
If a "Fundamental Muslim Social Media" in the USA free speech if it reflects approx. the same level hate that these new social media sites do? That is - as long as the SITE ITSELF or the hosts or admins do not directly participate after the mob has organize, they shouldn't be held to any standard, right?
I was hoping to have a sane conversation about these two items - for starters. You have to have a plan in order to succeed. I doubt the Constitution says "Free Speech for Whites and Guns and Dog Whistles but none for others".
What is hard to understand... GAB allows free speech from everyone.
Why deal in the hypothetical, when facts are present.
GAB swayed Brazil's recent election, after Twitter booted all the Tropical Trump's supporters.
That Facebook and Google, which owns YouTube, muffled one of the internet’s loudest voices so quickly illustrates the tremendous influence a few internet companies have over public discourse and the spread of information.
You are correct in a sense - Amazon has quite a reach too. So does Apple. Back in the daze, Microsoft and IBM had a lot of pull also.
The real key here is that anyone can create a better search engine or social media site. There is no law limiting the internet to FB and Google or anyone else.
BTW, it's probably a nice factoid to note the busiest sites on the net. Most of them earned it...the hard way. My point - if not clear - is that not only do I support GAB and as many sites as wish to operate, but they have existed for decades...or longer!
I can claim I have millions of views, but doesn't make it so. Maybe sites like Alexa, Quantcast, etc hold some clues, but would definitely need outside verification.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.