Why do you think it's unmoderated? I saw this same statement in another comment and pulled up their guidelines: https://gab.com/about/guidelines. Essentially they aim to moderate according to US law
They censor speech in order to conform to US law, which means they don't support free speech. They cannot as a platform both support free speech and practice censorship.
Which is odd, because in every other instance with every other platform, any censorship no matter how benign is denounced as a slippery slope towards an inevitable and irreversible Orwellian nightmare dystopia. I guess Gab is the exception to the rule for some reason.
Yes. Abridgement of speech in any form is censorship. In this case, the speech of people who want to discuss activities the US government deems illegal is being censored.
Censorship can be (and in the most heinous cases, is) compelled by a government, and can even arguably serve the public good, as is often argued with hate speech laws, or (less controversially) with laws against libel and slander. But as far as free speech is concerned, all censorship is equally dangerous.
It's hypocrisy for defenders of Gab to complain about platform owners and businesses de-platforming them, while accepting Gab doing the same.
>> Was that censorship in order to conform to US law?
>Yes. Abridgement of speech in any form is censorship.
That wasn't the question asked.
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."
The question was whether the other examples were compelled by government law. That puts them in a different category. Unless you would like to argue that the other censorship was performed to keep the organizers out of prison, your argument falls flat.
