First paragraph on Wikipedia, in case anyone seriously considers it:
> Gab is an English-language alt-tech social networking service known for its far-right userbase.[7] The site has been widely described as a safe haven for extremists including neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right, and has attracted users and groups who have been banned from other social networks.[8][9][19] Gab states that it promotes free speech and individual liberty, although these statements have been criticized as being a shield for its alt-right ecosystem.[20][17][21] Antisemitism is a prominent part of the site's content, and the company itself has engaged in antisemitic commentary on Twitter.[23][24][25] Researchers have written that Gab has been "repeatedly linked to radicalization leading to real-world violent events".[26]
It's almost like there's a pattern of "free speech" alternatives turning into a cesspool.
For a thing to be a better alternative it would need to have structural differences that ensure it will not devolve as Twitter has. Gab is essentially a carbon copy of Twitter, but for a different set of ideas.
Pleroma and Mastodon (as well as other ActivityPub enabled microblogging software) are the only real, better alternatives that exist right now.
It prevents censorship network wide, which means you can publish no matter what and people can see it. So it prevents echo chambers by making sure nobody controls the narrative on the network.
Another way it does this is that there's no financial incentive to share "engaging" content and there's no algorithm to rank content. So it is not conducive to the viral spread of inflammatory content.
Keep in mind, most things we call "networks" are just single web sites. Most of the problem I believe stems from this confusion. AP is an actual network. It is what we have wanted to have on the internet for a very long time.
reply