Talk:Gab (social network)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Original description is incomplete.[edit]

The first sentence says, "Gab is an American alt-tech microblogging and social networking service known for its far-right userbase."

This is true, but incomplete.

It would be more accurate to say:

"Gab is an American alt-tech microblogging and social networking with a policy of free speech in accordance with the First Amendment of the American Constitution. This policy results in lax content moderation and attracts a far-right userbase, which Gab is known for."

Thoughts? I think this is more accurate given Gab's Terms of Service.

https://gab.com/about/tos

Their terms of service doesn't mention anything far-right topics or bias. It just says they follow the 1st amendment with regard to content moderation:

"Although our Content Standards, following the First Amendment, do not proscribe offensive speech, we strongly encourage you to ensure that your User Contributions are cordial and civil. The foundation of a free society requires people to peacefully settle their differences through dialogue and debate. Gab exists to promote the free flow of information online."

And this content moderation policy is responsible for attracting far-right users who cannot post their views on sites with more stringent content moderation policies. Apc3161 (talk) 14:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide the quote from the US Constitution that names Gab. Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) We primarily follow what reliable sources say about a subject, not what the subject says about itself. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But is it even up for debate that their terms of service follow the 1st amendment? I think that is 100% accurate.
There is no question it is a far-right website, the reliable sources are correct about that, but that is a result of the fact that it's the only website that doesn't ban or censor far-right users.
I think it's more accurate to describe what Gab is, and then describe what the result is, than it is to describe Gab as a far-right website, which on a fundamental level it is not. Subtle distinction. Apc3161 (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm the coolest thing since sliced bread, but a Wikipedia article about me shouldn't describe me as such (even if it's objectively true) unless reliable sources widely take up the descriptor. Same goes here. This topic has been discussed at great length in the talk page archives, which I would invite you to peruse.
It's not terribly relevant to the discussion, since individual editors' opinions around whether Gab adheres to the first amendment as they claim should not influence whether the descriptor goes in the article, but since you asked: I think it's quite a bit less than 100% accurate. Gab has a blanket ban on "sexually explicit or pornographic" content, which is generally protected by the First Amendment. The same goes for other categories they prohibit (spam, financial activities, etc.) GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the First Amendment applies to governments, NOT to private companies like Gab. The freedom of speech clause says the government cannot censor speech before it is spoken (but it can punish speech after the speech is uttered)--it does not in any way del with the removal of nasty messages on Gab. Rjensen (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can we change it to something more accurate though? e.g.
"Gab is an American alt-tech microblogging and social networking with lax content moderation policies, which attracts a far-right userbase that it is known for" Apc3161 (talk) 03:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's known for its far-right userbase, that's what we're primarily going to talk about. No need to make the opening sentence more complicated. Your suggestion is not more *accurate*--it still includes all the same information as the original, so any accuracy issues would not be changed. It might be more *precise*, but that in itself doesn't necessarily mean better. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Dissenter section?[edit]

Gab stopped developing the Dissenter browser some time ago it seems. News articles concerning it are over 2 years old. The dissenter website is now just a news aggregator it seems.

https://dissenter.com/

No mention of the old browser, which apparently you can't even download.

Thoughts about deleting this section for a defunct project? Apc3161 (talk) 03:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, unless we can find a source about the change, we can probably just delete it. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than deleting it entirely, perhaps a shortened version of the section should be merged into the 2019 history subsection. It was certainly noteworthy at the time, so deleting it outright doesn't seem appropriate. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In line with your suggestion, I was thinking of deleting the dissenter section, since it has been discontinued, and just copying some of the text over to the 2019 section as follows, thoughts?:
"In 2019, Gab launched a browser extension called Dissenter, an aggregation and discussion service which allowed Gab users to make non-moderated comments on any webpage including news articles, YouTube videos, and individual social media posts.[1] Comments made using the Dissenter extension were outside of the webpage owner's control, and the extension could be used to comment on websites with no comment feature or where the comment sections were closed. Dissenter was criticized as an extension which "puts a far-right comments section on every site."[2] The Dissenter extension was subsequently banned from the Google and Mozilla add-on stores for violating hate-speech policies. [3]. Following this removal, Gab created their own Dissenter browser, based on a fork of the Brave browser, which has since been discontinued. [4]" Apc3161 (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like a good change to me. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. Might be worth adding that the Dissenter extension has also been discontinued, assuming a reliable source for that exists. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gab AI[edit]

I created a section for Gab's new Chatbot AI. The section what accurate and concise as follows:

"In early 2024, Gab launched a chatbot service called Gab AI. In addition to the default chatbot, users can choose to interact with chatbots that impersonate well known historicals figures such as Plato, Thomas Jefferson, Confucius, and Mother Teresa."

It was removed, stating "it doesn't need its own l2 heading." I fail to see how Dissenter, a browser which has been discontinued for 4 years should have it's own section, but an AI chatbot and AI art generator that has 100,000 users and competes with Google's Gemini, ChatGPT, etc. should not have its own section.

I would like to add it back. Thoughts everyone? If it shouldn't have it's own section, where should I add this description? Apc3161 (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems this was added to the 2024 section. I still think Gab AI chatbot/image generator should have its own section. But I suppose having it in the 2024 section is also accurate. Apc3161 (talk) 02:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is very little third-party sourcing about this feature, so I don't think it warrants a full section of its own. Speaking of which, please cite reliable third-party sources to support content you add. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. Wikipedia policy states:
"The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. For example, the statement "the capital of France is Paris" does not require a source to be cited, nor is it original research, because it's not something you thought up and it is easily verifiable; therefore, no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it even if they are not cited. The statement is verifiable, even if not verified."
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
So if something is easily verifiable, no third party source is required. The fact that there are AI models for various historical figures is easy verifiable, just go to the website.
https://gab.ai/characters
You can easily verify that 100's of AI characters are available to chat with. That is why I mentioned Plato, Thomas Jefferson, Hitler, Lenin, and Confucius.
Why would only the AI bot for Hitler be mentioned? Doesn't seem logical to me, there are literally 100's of characters. I think we should mention a few of them to keep the article accurate.
Thoughts? Apc3161 (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why you're talking about the historical figure models. That's not relevant to this discussion. If your point is "it exists" well... that's not enough to justify a section about it. We need to demonstrate it's relevant to the article, and that's where third-party sources come in. If no one is talking about it, it's not worth including. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 23:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want a section about it. There is already a discussion on it. I just don't see how it makes logical sense, of the 100's of characters available, the only one this wiki article mentions is Hitler. Seems strange. Apc3161 (talk) 01:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not strange when you consider how controversial Hitler is, and that making a chatbot for people to interact with "him" is going to attract controversy. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that GorillaWarfare on 9 February 2024 replaced your list with Adolf Hitler, edit summary = "2024: adjust section to rely on secondary rather than primary sources", the secondary source being Rolling Stone. I'd be sympathetic to changing or reverting that if the cite is to https://gab.ai/characters -- it's probably okay according to WP:SELFPUB. (I'd say a full list is not unduly self-serving, what's undue would be a writer's opinion that only one person on the list matters.) But I don't see why you picked the "historical figures" that you picked, and would be happier with "users can choose to interact with chatbots including some that impersonate historical figures", no names. Alternatively we could say nothing at all. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC) Update: I asked gab.ai "does gab ai have a chatbot based on adolf hitler?" and the reply was "No ...". Peter Gulutzan (talk)[reply]
I'm leaning towards "nothing at all" personally. It's another fad chatbot, with figures selected for shock value. It's not WP:DUE for inclusion. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. We should cite the page itself and write something just as you suggested:
"In early 2024, Gab launched a beta version of a chatbot service called Gab AI. In addition to the default chatbot, users can choose to interact with chatbots which impersonate historical figures. Gab AI can also function as a text-to-image model to produce artificial intelligence art."
Accurate. Concise. Neutral.
Thoughts? Apc3161 (talk) 01:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay be me, but if GorillaWarfare and HandThatFeeds object then we don't have consensus, and in that case I think the fallback should be to remove entirely since the GorillaWarfare version doesn't have consensus either, assuming you object to it as much as I do. Let's see first whether they both object. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to removal. My concern was about having a section on a topic that was entirely sourced to Gab itself — a concern that is reintroduced by Apc's proposal. If this is noteworthy enough to mention, we should see what RS have to say and follow their lead. Otherwise, it should be omitted. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if our only source is the Gab page, then all that says is "it exists." That flies in the face of WP:DUE, much less WP:RS, so it just needs to come out. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the section. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be discussed because AI, per them, is one of if not their main focus now. It should probably have its own section (especially if the Dissenter has its own section, which hasn't existed for years), but should at least be added into the 2024 section. So let's try do build a consensus then. How about this?
"In early 2024, Gab launched a chatbot service called Gab AI. In addition to the default chatbot, users can choose to interact with chatbots which impersonate numerous historical figures, including controversial figures such as Vladimir Putin.[5]. Gab AI can also made use of a text-to-image model to produce artificial intelligence art.[6]"
This is accurate, concise, cites reliable sources per Wikipedia guidelines, and neutral. I would like to hear suggestions in order to build a consensus. Apc3161 (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gab’s Racist AI Chatbots Have Been Instructed to Deny the Holocaust
Yeah. I think your brief paragraph, plus the above cite, is about all we need on the topic. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely doesn't need its own section, though. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ "Gab wants to add a comments section to everything on the internet".
  2. ^ "Gab browser extension puts a far-right comments section on every site".
  3. ^ "Google Deals New Blow to Alt-Right Social Network Gab".
  4. ^ "What is Gab.com?".
  5. ^ "The rise of the Hitler chatbot: Will Europe be able to prevent far right radicalisation by AI?".
  6. ^ "White Supremacist Networks Gab and 8Kun Are Training Their Own AI Now".

White & Black[edit]

The text "White" in this article should be capitalized, as it refers to the racial group, and there are already two instances of the word "Black" that are capitalized. MOS:RACECAPS AppGoo0011 (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gab is not accessible from Israel, should this be added?[edit]

Gab is not accessible from Israel, should this be added? Reciprocist (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's particularly relevant. And we'd need reliable sources that cover it, in any case. I doubt it would pass WP:DUE. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per the above, seems (assuming is can be sourced) pretty trvial. Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boycotts after pay policy change[edit]

This should be added to the history section.LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 03:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lets wait until we see the result. Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gab_(social_network)&oldid=1212658689"