Gab Users Somehow Astounded To Discover Gab Will Comply With FBI Requests For User Information
All aboard the schadenfreude train!
It's always a pleasure to see denizens of the various Islands of Misfit Social Media Users get bent out of shape when their platform of choice (and by that I mean the options they had left after getting excommunicated by actually popular social media services) does regular-ass things that are taken as crimes against these particular dregs of society.
Parler, the second major entrant to the alt-Twitter sweepstakes, angered its user base by doing something all social media platforms do: comply with lawful requests for user information. Early last year, it was forced to explain the difference between free speech and criminal activity to a bunch of supposed free speech absolutists. When content contains incitement or details of criminal activity, Parler will turn over user information to the federales. That's just how things work, compadres. Govern yourselves accordingly.
Now, Gab is being forced to do the same thing. Its users apparently believe vague promises about valuing free speech mean the platform will always tell law enforcement to GTFO when they ask for user information.
That's not how it works. And Gab knows this, even if its user base remains blissfully self-deluded.
On Monday, federal prosecutors announced the arrest of a Pennsylvania man for allegedly threatening on Gab to kill Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents.
Gab users are apoplectic. They feel betrayed by the far-right platform and its founder Andrew Torba, who often touts his commitment to free speech," and has no qualms with Gab being a haven for racists and other extremists.
According to the arrest affidavit, upon request, Gab gave the FBI records including a user's email, IP addresses, and chat logs. The FBI then used this information to identify Adam Bies of Mercer, Pennsylvania.
Bies is allegedly among the many people who took to social media to agitate against the FBI over its search of former President Donald Trump's residence in Florida last week. The complaint asserts that he posted numerous threats against the FBI such as, My only goal is to kill more of them before I drop," and If you work for the FBI then you deserve to die."
Whether or not these will actually be determined to be true threats by a court remains to be seen. Neither of the two quoted phrases seem to fit the definition. The first doesn't specify who is to be killed and the second seems like little more than heated rhetoric that wouldn't be acceptable in polite society, but it's called the First Amendment, not the What Would Polite Society Do? Amendment.
That being said, Gab is complying with a law enforcement request for user information. It appears the FBI didn't need either a subpoena or a warrant to obtain this. All it needed to do was ask nicely.
Sure, some users may be righteously angry that Gab didn't demand more before coughing up this info. But that's on the users. They bought into Gab's claims it would champion their First Amendment rights. In reality, all Gab did was give them an echo chamber that is far less protective of their rights than its closest competitor, Twitter.
Say what you will about Twitter (and plenty of Gab users did after being booted by the service) but it will at least challenge unreasonable requests for personal data. All Gab promised anyone was a bullhorn for stupidity.
Even its founder appears to be sick of his users' shit. In his statement to Gab users following the backlash, Torba made it clear his platform would host protected speech, which isn't the same thing as any speech.
Why do you think I am constantly saying do not post threats of violence? If you're just trying to let off some steam, threatening anyone - federal agent or not - is not the right way to do it. Gab is a home for lawful speech and lawful speech only. We've been clear about this for a long time.
Not clear enough for these oafs, apparently. People booted from Twitter for hate speech, misinformation, or harassment apparently felt that because these things were welcomed at Gab so would content that possibly violated the law. And now they're angry because one of their fellow Gab users might have to face the consequences of their actions.
An established platform with a solid legal team will always protect your rights better than a reactionary alternative that openly caters to those who can't seem to play by the rules elsewhere. A real platform may have asked the government to present some paperwork. Gab, however, says all you need is an informal request. And yet these same people, who are angry with Andrew Torba for turning over this user's info, will still somehow believe Twitter, Facebook, et al are less protective of their speech. And if that's their kink, so be it. But there's not an alternative platform out there willing to operate with the same level of cognitive dissonance their users display.