Gab Users Somehow Astounded To Discover Gab Will Comply With FBI Requests For User Information
from the you-know,-just-like-every-service-provider dept
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.
Filed Under: 1st amendment, adam bies, andrew torba, fbi, free speech, threats, true threats
Companies: gab
Comments on “Gab Users Somehow Astounded To Discover Gab Will Comply With FBI Requests For User Information”
A platform intended for people who care more about being able to say and act however they want without care for those around them prioritizes itself over it’s users, you’d think they would have seen that coming…
Another fine example of people thinking that ‘free speech’ is shorthand for consequences-free speech. Rant about federal agents and talk about how you’d love to kill some of them and they take that seriously, what a surprise.
Re:
You’d think they’d understand Trump doesn’t care about them, yet here we are.
Re: Re:
I am perpetually baffled by that with the only explanation I can come up with being that they think that the leopard would never try to eat their face right up to the moment it does, and until that time they get to enjoy watching it go after anyone and everyone else.
Re: Re: Re:
Herd mentality, basically.
Re: Re: Re:
They hear the slogans and can’t see the reality, so they cheer on the person leading the chant of the slogans.
Re: Re: Re:2
TBF, Trump did keep his promise to make America great again. He left the Oval Office. 😉
Re: Re: Re:3
Some people make a better place wherever they go.
Others make a better place whenever they go.
Re:
…But only so long as the consequences their speech is free from are negative. They don’t want to lose out on happy consequences like backpats from their fellow garbage people or a thumbs-up from Big Fat Dump, after all.
Re:
I’ve been a Gab member since 2016 when they formed.
They have always been clear that they don’t allow speech that violates SCOTUS definition of unprotected speech, which is extremely allowing outside of direct threats/calls to violence.
And in my experience in going on seven years there, they have lived up to that pledge.
However, I am banned, for life, from Twitter and Facebook both.
Not for hate speech, heck I’m not even sure what for. They don’t tell you, they just do it, and you have no recourse.
Now I know most folks who read this will just make assumptions about me in order to justify my erasure from these popular public squares, and that’s fine.
Do what you need to to make it OK in your head I suppose. I’ve given up on trying to rationalize, and bring people around to reality on this stuff.
But just know that a lot of people are being oppressed on places like Twitter/Facebook, and I assure you, if you have a rebellious bone in your body someday it will be you they target.
Have a nice day folks.
Re: Re:
Oh and if by chance anyone is interested in seeing the types of things I write, I’m reign99 on Gab.
I posted zero differently on the platforms I’m banned from. If anything, I was more reserved on those platforms, but truth be told I’m not that guy.
I speak the same wherever I am, including in my actual life.
Obviously not at kids birthday parties, but you get what I mean.
If I am with other adults talking about issues, I’m talking about issues like I always would. I say what I believe and that’s that.
“But it should be!” cried the Gab userbase.
Re:
It should be when the self-defined We does it, anyway.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
People have a 1st Amendment right to speak anonymously, but people also have a 1st Amendment right to try to find out who these anonymous speakers are. That is, it is not illegal to try to conceal your identity when you speak, but no one else, including the government, is obligated to honor your intentions and not try to figure out who you are.
Re:
thank you, Private Obvious
Re: Re:
Someday he’s gonna get that promotion to Private Obvious First Class and then you’ll see!
Re: Re: Obvious?
Not to the Gab users apparently. Not sure why the grandparent was flagged. Is obvious/tautological grounds for flagging?
Re: Re: Re:
You missing the context, and the only way to get the context is to know Hyman Rosen’s stance on free speech. You should go and read some of things he posted and you’ll understand.
Re:
Doxxing is a form of harassment. And an invitation to try to do worse.
Even for public figures with actual names.
And in this case? The FBI also has an obligation to protect their employees as well, assuming the case has merit.
Re: Re:
Doxxing is a form of harassment.
Correct. Through searching for ThorsProvoni’s online history, I’ve learnt his real name and full address, but even though he’s given me an excellent excuse (multiple ad homs directed at me), I won’t ever post them here or on any other website for tgat exact reason. Besides, why should I lower myself to his level?
Well, it looks like GAB is just exercising their free speech rights. It should go both ways, right?
Gab to FBI…”These are the hate filled right wingers you are looking for.”
Re:
Gab to FBI…”These are the hate filled right wingers you are looking for.”
Every single user of Gab.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
"less protective of their rights than ... Twitter"
That depends on which things you’re talking about. Twitter may be more protective of revealing user information when the government comes asking for it (assuming that’s true), but they might be less protective of letting users speak their opinions freely, depending on the viewpoint of those opinions. In fact, if only the people they like can speak freely, it makes sense that they would try to protect those people.
Re:
Yet another bad faith argument. *yawn* You’re so fucking boring.
Re:
Trump was allowed to harrass and spew his bullshit until Jan 6.
A bunch of Republican politicians too, as well as their talking heads and bad faith actors.
And even discounting the allegations they have foreign actors in their employ, there’s enough evidence to disprove your shittastic arguments.
1A does not guantaree you an audience, or that you can continue to pretend that your behavior has no consequences.
And frankly, I am tired of your wilful ignorance to actual fucking science.
Re: Re:
A bunch of Republican politicians too, as well as their talking heads and bad faith actors.
Hymen Rosan fills both of those roles. 😉
Surprising?
There has been a spike in reported harassment and threats particularly with the 2020 election and its fallout. I’m surprised we don’t see a lot more of these stories. I can’t imagine people dumb enough to say this crap are rocket scientists smart enough to cover their tracks, and the current climate of vitriol is disruptive to say the least. If the secret service could track down and visit a schoolboy who drew crosshairs on a picture of George W, why can’t the FBI do the same to every idiot who actually explicitly threatens a public official?
Re:
Only if there is an actual threat.
However, the FBI does have an obligation to protect its employees. Which is why they’re investigating the case.
Huh?
Tim has a strange idea of what “real” in “real platform” means.
Does it exist, is it active, does it have users? It’s a “real” platform even if you don’t like it.
conservapedia is full of crap and nonsense. The Ark is a joke of reality. But they do exist and are real.
Not necessarily. But you depend on that there. It’s your life.
Re:
Not necessarily.
Links.
But you depend on that there. It’s your life.
[Citation needed]
Re: Re:
I see no links showing it’s true either.
To tell a person to live their own life? Make their own choices? Are you dense?
Re: Re: Re:
So you’re continuing the trolling you began in the ‘comment’ Raziel replied to. Why am I not surprised?
Re: Re: Re:2
I’m, sorry, but as a IDGAF/DWYW software enthusiast, a developer, I don’t buy the nonsense about “real” software, platforms, whatever.
Pointing out that that (real) is a blatant low blow dig and nothing more than pure opinion with no factual basis… is now trolling?
Or is it that I replied with ‘whatever’ to a demand for no-existent links because i pointed out there’s no evidence for the claim of “protection” of one platform over another?
Re: Re: Re:3
In this particular case here, I’m assuming Cushing implied that “real” meant “would at least have the sense to ask if the FBI had a warrant for that info”.
Because, yanno, user privacy and “we’d need proof that you’re what you said you are”.
Handing out such info to random nobodies, even if they are card-carrying members of the FBI, is dangerous as fuck and a potentiat opsec violation.
Re: Re: Re:4
Cushing didn’t say “real”, that’s the strawman erected by Lostcause to justify his trolling.
Re: Re: Re:5
Re: Re: Re:4
My guess, and it’s nothing beyond that, is that official, verifiable, paperwork was sent.
When I worked as CIS we got a lot of those.
Some we turns over data, most we didn’t.
But those, some. Are the basis for my saying there’s nothing but assumption that any platform won’t comply with an informal request.
CIS wasn’t exactly a ‘fake’ platform.
Re: Re: Re:3
“Established” and “real” aren’t synonymous, and only a disingenuous troll like you would claim otherwise. As for the protection mentioned by Tim Cushing, that’s not for the platforms, it’s for their users. As others have stated, you’re nothing but a troll that argues in bad faith. I asked for links to show that Twitter doesn’t have a legal team and isn’t (currently) willing to go to bat for its users, and your response was to double down on your bullshit claims rather than provide the evidence I requested. That’s very telling.
Re: Re: Re:4
Actually, what you asked for was “links”.
And I have no evidence that they do or don’t. As I don’t post on twitter, I don’t care. So I’m not going to go looking for or against something of no value to me.
You equally failed to produce a single study or review that shows twitter is more likely to defend users than other platforms.
The statement remains pure conjecture and opinion without evidence.
Re: Re: Re:5
And I have no evidence that they do or don’t.
Then why make the assertion that they don’t without the evidence to back yourself? Just like Koby, you’re nothing but a disingenuous troll that doesn’t like to answer even slightly uncomfortable questions.
Re: Re: Re:6
I didn’t. I suggested that if you wish to use blind faith in a platform of choice, it’s your life. Do what you want.
See, I have little issue with the turning over info of a potential criminal to law enforcement based on a request, not a warrant. Especially on violence cases.
Just like i would, and have, turned over security camera footage (copy’s) to law enforcement.
Warrants protect and individual from being forced into divulgence without one.
It’s not a requirement for willingly supplying information.
Pointing that out makes me smart, not a troll.
Re: Re: Re:7
Interesting. Perhaps I should contact my local LEO and claim you’ve threatened violence (not a massive stretch since you’re a Trump supporter), and hope Techdirt just hands over your data without requiring a warrant. See how you feel about that.
Re: Re: Re:8
The big difference is I haven’t threatened to break the law.
So I’m not worried about techdirt turning over my info. Techdirt can turn over my info without my concern or consent. It is their right.
See, I’ve never posted logged out. I believe in personal responsibility. And have zero concern of my legal standing.
as your MSNBC bubble incapable of separating personal strategic choices from pledged support is telling.
See, i Hate the packers. But betting on their opponent isn’t the same as supporting their opponent.
I want the packers to lose. That’s different entirely from wanting the opponent to win.
I support the wikimedia method of posting a user’s IP address for losers, pins suck, faithless, and degenerates (non-registered). There’s accountability in that.
As far as I’m aware this is one of the very few sites that let anonymous users post. It’s a sad fact we registered users must live with while we are here.
Re: Re: Re:9
Actually, there are very few sites that don’t let anonymous users post. I can’t put a number on all the blogs that have allowed me to comment with nothing more than a nickname and a made up email address.
Re: Re: Re:10
I’ll have to take your word for it. I have neither evidence nor experience to show otherwise.
We clearly have different use cases.
Re: Re: Re:7
Dude, we can see all your posts on this page and you did make the assertion that Twitter doesn’t have a legal team and isn’t willing to hit back against bullshit requests from LEOs, something that Techdirt’s reported on in the past.
Re: Re: Re:8
[quote]
as it didn’t happen.
Re: Re: Re:9
LostInLoDOS (profile) says:
August 23, 2022 at 8:48 am
Not necessarily. But you depend on that there. It’s your life.
Re: Re: Re:10
https://www.techdirt.com/2022/08/30/judge-no-expectation-of-privacy-in-user-info-voluntarily-shared-with-facebook-oks-fbis-user-data-grab/
Wow, guess I wasn’t wrong after all?
Re: Re: Re:10
Blind faith is your right to choose. You, feel free to choose whatever platforms to trust with your data you wish to.
looks like my thought, my musing, that a big platform is no different than a small one when it comes to data, is justified. Just depends on who is begging and why.
So again, choose to trust whoever you want with whatever you want. It’s your choice. Your life. Live it as you please.
Re: Re: Re:5
Actually, what you asked for was “links”.
Because “links” has never meant “links to evidence”, has it? Well done on mistepresenting what was said, disingenuous troll.
Re: Re: Re:4
Let me reiterate, if you believe a major site is any more caring than a minor one of its user base, it’s your life. Have at it with blind faith.
Re-read the end of the article. Tim used the word “real”!!! Not me. I just replied to the use.
So if you have a problem with that usage (as I did) take it up with him.
As for “claims” I made none. In fact, I said that Tim’s claim without evidence that “real” platforms are more protective is nothing more than blind faith. Sticking “may” in the sentence doesn’t change the image of belief.
Re: Re: Re:5
In fact, I said that Tim’s claim without evidence that “real” platforms are more protective is nothing more than blind faith.
Except that this blog is full of stories about Twitter refusing access to user data without the proper documentation, aka warrants and subpoenas.
Re: Re: Re:6
That may be true. I don’t know off hand. I don’t read every article posted. Generic info about social media is of little interest to me; I tend to skip over that.
I have a single, under duress and totally against my will, use case for twitter.
What they do say in/out is not my concern.
As for turning over data, or selling my info. I don’t care about either. I have tracking turned on across sites, and apps. I appreciate targeted advertising that lets me support free services by buying thing I’m interested in.
And since I don’t intend to break the law, I don’t care if they turn my info over to LE.
And since I do not block location data sharing and tracking, my phone’s history will show where it was. And my usage of my phone will tie me to the location. So not worried about false narrative either.
Re: Re: Re:7
*I don’t read every article posted. *
Translation: I claim to have ignored specific Techdirt content when things I should know from being a long-time commenter are presented to me.
Re: Re: Re:8
Corrected translation: I only read topics of interest to me. Meaning, I skip a lot of social media stuff.
Re: Re: Re:8
Either Tim doesn’t consider facebook a “real” platform or…
Re: Re: Re:7
And since I do not block location data sharing and tracking, my phone’s history will show where it was. And my usage of my phone will tie me to the location.
With the way things are going right now, that’s going to come back and bite you in the butt.
Re: Re: Re:8
I don’t see how. But it’s my own decision.
Re: Re: Re:8
What is it with the privacy-centric that makes them so incapable of understanding some people’s don’t agree. It’s not belief, it’s (dis)agreement.
I don’t intend to break the law. Therefore I have no fear. If I do inadvertently break a law, ignorance is not a defence. And I am held to the law. That is the way it is.
I don’t worry about tracking and sharing. Advertising portfolios creat profiles. Profiles are used for targeted advertising. Targeted advertising allows me to more willingly help sites I use by supplying click through and affiliation proceeds from items of interest to me.
The only time this came back to bite me was sin the early covid days when sanitising wipes were gouged or out of stock. And I bought a case of baby bum wipes as an alternative. I like to get as much oil, green, etc off my hands before using a sink to reduce what goes into the pipes
Now I keep getting coupons and offers for baby food and diapers. 🤦♂️
Shows AI is a bit lacking in the I aspect.
As of yet, nobody has shown me how my “failure” to be concerned is going to hurt me!
Re: Re: Re:9
Somebody that allows tracking can be tracked, and if one of the sites that collects that data is anything like Gab…
Re: Re: Re:10
A) I don’t use gab
B) I don’t post on any social media
C) I don’t intend to break the law
D) because of C I don’t fear investigation
E) if I do break the law it’s my own fault and I should, and would, accept the consequences
Re: Re: Re:11
A) I don’t use gab
Because “like Gab” means “is Gab”, right? Dumbass.
Re: Re: Re:12
I’m sure in your warped pea of a brain that made sense to you.
Re: Re: Re:10 Going further
The biggest concern, WE, the “nothing wrong, nothing to fear” crowd, have, is data breaches.
I don’t reuse passwords, so one of the biggest fears is gone.
Data breach? Change one password. Verify account info. Move along.
I have credit monitoring and a reputable, reliable bank. 2 actually. So a payment breach is nothing more than a single phone call. A new credit card number.
Since 99% of my purchasing is done through secured app or wallet, the number change is immediate. No delay there.
So the only concern for me is some random whackjob showing up at my door.
You’re on camera, audio and video. Internal and external. There is absolutely nowhere on property you can go without being recorded.
So what, you’ve bad intentions? Violence, breaking in, …? Not wise. Not for a hunting supporting libertarian veteran’s family. Such people are known for not killing intruders. You’ll get yourself shot and be quite alive when the police come to remove you.
So what’s left? No account security concern, no data-sharing concern. No financial concern. No personal safety concern. No track record concern.
I won’t go out of my way to share my exact specifics to the general public. Doxing would cause a nightmare. I don’t like physical altercation.
But that lesser risk tends to worth it for the pure volume of coupons and discounts that come with repeat user/buyer and giving up a bit of your privacy. Coupled with the personal joy that I’m helping sites stay online!
Re: Re: Re:11
Trackable = swattable. Dumbass.
Re: Re: Re:12
True.
And this country needs better, harsh, extreme laws for idiot scum that does that.
Confused
I don’t even know what free speech is?. Is it my moral interpretation or the fbi ? Or GAB ?
Even charlie manson was perplexed. When he told his minions to go jump off a building they did not. They told Charlie he was apeshit retarded.
Now when charlie told them go kick and kill some ass they did. They told Charlie he must be e god.
So if I was to say, I’m gonna stick my foot up somebody’s ass, is it a do gooder at GAB that determines,with a big enough foot, this guy is saying he is going to kill, that turns this Into the fbi? Or is the FBI already watching?