Paypal closes accounts on far-right social network Gab

Originally published at:


Anticipating the usual objections from Libertarians and right-wingers here…


Punch the Nazis in the wallet.


Congratulations for labeling everyone who disagrees with you. It makes for a welcoming discussion environment.

You are aware that the whole debate has more than 2 standpoints, and they are not all arranged on a single axis?

Thanks for providing relevant cartoons and links, though :slight_smile:


Well somehow around here it’s never liberals or progressives who make those usual objections. Or people of colour, for that matter.

I do understand it’s a complex situation, but those who make the usual objections start from a point of ignorance of the basic concepts or are under the illusion they’re blowing our minds with their “novel insights”. Posting a quick summary (especially in a form they might grasp) just saves everyone time.

I will add one other thing: contrary to Citizens United, money does not equal speech in the context of the First Amendment.


Gab flails around trying to justify itself as the social media of choice for Nazis, Klan, white supremacists, incels, & other hate fueled killers:

The answer to “bad speech” is more speech. Censorship and pushing people into the shadows will never be the answer.

If people can not express themselves through words, they will do so through violence.

That not how this works, that’s not how any of this works. More inciting hate speech makes more fear, oppression and violence. And that’s even more true when it’s happening in little protected havens for would be terrorists like Gab.


Some positions just aren’t worth the energy and time to debate,


But you are right. It isn’t just fascists, there are plenty of Good Citizens who think my existence is a debatable position too.


And, per Popper, aren’t deserving of a reputable platform.

If PayPal has decided to pull its support from a disreputable platform for speech it finds repugnant, that’s its right as a private organisation.


Well, I’m not sure about “liberal”, as that’s a purely American term, but I’ve been voting somewhere in the leftmost 20% of the Austrian political spectrum. And I can’t do anything about my skin color.
Last time I dared speak out (ETA: on this subject) I was quickly diagnosed as a Nazi supporter.

And I’m not quite if it isn’t already happening again - @the_borderer, are you accusing me, and insulting me in Russel’s words, or are you just referring to the people at Gab? (in which case, please carry on!)

I happen to hold the position that limits on free speech should be democratically legitimized, and not a question of who owns what company. I like our Nazi-banning law in Austria :slight_smile:, and I am not supporting Nazis.

I don’t like the non-democratically legitimized way of limiting undesirable speech, because I feel that I’ve been on the receiving end of that more often than the Nazis.
I would have loved a quick and easy way to donate to WikiLeaks back when it was cool - unfortunately, America had declared it treasonous and patriotic American companies like Visa, MasterCard and PayPal refused to give them a platform. And I am sure there are plenty of conservative restaurant/café/pub owners around the world who would gladly refuse giving a platform to “sin” and kick out any gay couples they notice.

So maybe you guys are right and doing it the “vigilante” way is better than doing nothing at all in the US. But please stop preemptively labeling anyone who disagrees as “libertarians”, “right-wingers”, “Good Citizens”, or even as nazis.

@KathyPartdeux: No, no… You did not meet Zathras. You met… Zathras!


The U.S. tends to take a different approach, trying to leave the state entirely out of taking the positions on what speech is valid and what is not. In the context of late-stage winner-take-all capitalism that can lead to dangers, but in this situation Gab can avail itself of other payment processors with fewer scruples, or of decentralised cryptocurrency systems.

In the U.S. that would be inviting a federal case and is against the law in most of the country.

Again, I was pre-emptively labeling people who didn’t grasp the basic concepts of this debate before launching into it as Libertarians (capital L) and right-wingers, because those who display that kind of ignorance on BoingBoing do indeed for the most part fall into those categories.


From something unrelated, but it sort of works for this: “And so it’s come to this, it’s come to this. And wasn’t it a long way down? Wasn’t it a strange way down?”


The people at Gab and the other fascists who try to set up genocide as something that can be debated.


The solution to that is not unilaterally disarming against a pernicious enemy. They started this tactic - if they don’t like it it’s up to them to come to the table and offer a compromise.


Welcome to the fucking club; neither can I… nor can millions of POC in the US and around the world, whose lives are endangered by the toxic ideology of sites like “Gab.”

If you keep being mistaken for a Nazi sympathizer, then perhaps it’s time to do some honest self evaluation of your rhetoric.

Or maybe tech companies read the news? (Wait… Did they just appeal to Donald Trump over claimed collusion??)


I am aware. But I’m also aware that some positions do not permit any room for nuance, let alone exist along a spectrum. And that’s become the case for many reasons.

Some people want to try making their hate speech something to be endured like some people want to stick a fork into a live outlet, over and over again, so long as someone else endures the consequences.

But throw a few their way and watch how they howl.

The market judges their custom unfit for commerce, and so they appeal for an exception.

Where is their Galt now?


Let’s see if we can pare this sentence down…

Gab’s Twitter account has spent much of the day attacking critics […] calling Twitter “one giant cesspool of Jew-hating lunatics.” [More concise]

Gab’s Twitter account […] “one giant cesspool of Jew-hating lunatics.” [There we go!]

I guess they thought they were subtle and clever with their green frog logo.



Please rest assured that if I had an accusation to make about you, I’d state it outright - I wouldn’t be passive-aggressive about it.

As it stands, I don’t know anything about you, personally, or your beliefs, and to be perfectly frank, I don’t really care; in the scheme of every disturbing thing that’s going on, you’re just yet another grain of sand on the endless fucking beach of human existence.

But since you seem to feel the need to make it all about yourself, rather than the more pressing matters at hand, I will tell you this, unequivocally:

Anyone whose opinions frequently seem to be on the ‘wrong side’ of any ethical social dilemma, or anyone who’s even “on the fence” is NOT presenting themselves as an ally of those who genuinely strive for peace, equality and justice… they are presenting themselves as more obstacles to be overcome.

Good day.