Utsav Sanduja@u
If only it were a phone call or two…or an e-mail or a two.
My friend, you have no idea what you’re talking about.
You just don’t.
Vox Day@voxday
He doesn’t, but he will. I will post all of our recent emails back and forth on my blog tomorrow.
My objective was not to embarass anyone, nor is the content of the emails even remotely embarrassing to anyone, but merely to demonstrate that Utsav was lying and attempting to create a false narrative about my behavior. It really was just a phone call or two and an email or four, as you will see.
9/6/2017 21:36: Andrew emails me and asks me to talk to Utsav. He provides me with the number.
9/6/2017 21:58: Utsav emails me to request a call.
9/7/2017 08:44: I email Utsav to tell him that I rang but he did not pick up.
9/7/2017 08:54: Utsav emails me to tell me to call him in 15 minutes.
9/7/2017 10:09: I call Utsav. We talk for 16 minutes and 31 seconds. It’s a good, positive call.
9/7/2017 10:47: I email Utsav to thank him for taking the time to deal with this.
9/7/2017 11:07: Utsav emails me to direct my attention to this statement by Andrew.
9/7/2017 11:49: I email Utsav to ask what the policy on prospective libel and defamation will be.
9/7/2017 13:07: Utsav emails me to tell me it’s being reviewed.
9/7/2017 20:38: I email Utsav with my suggestions for how Gab could handle defamation complaints.
And that’s it. That’s the crazy, desperate narrative at which Utsav was darkly hinting. Most of the emails were little more than sentence or two. And if you would like to know what my suggestions were, they were not particularly ambitious or draconian.
- Clearly state that libel and defamation are not free speech in the guidelines.
- Establish a Legal Review Board to which libel-related complaints sent to support can be reviewed.
- If the Legal Review Board concludes that a post about which a complaint has been submitted is probable libel per current US legal standards, the account is given one strike, and the account holder is informed that his user details will be divulged to the target upon request by that user.
- Three strikes and the account is deleted and the account holder permanently banned. Each libelous post is counted separately, but multiple libels in a single post would only be counted once.
I felt this process would minimize legal disruptions to Gab, protect the Gab community from libel and defamation, provide any member of the community subjected to genuine libel a means of seeking legal redress without having to pay for the privilege of finding out who their attacker is, and remove any incentive for troublemakers to engage in libelous or defamatory behavior.
I’m not concerned about myself. As Supreme Dark Lord, I have the benefit of the Legal Legion of Evil, which I can assure Andrew Torba, despite his doubts, does exist. The various defamations that are presently published on Gab will be removed, one way or another. But there are others who are already coming forward who simply do not have such easy acccess the legal process that is presently required of them.
I felt that establishing a Legal Review Board would be a reasonable way of dealing with the obvious problem. Of course, I also feel that it is right to remove libelous and defamatory posts, even without waiting for a request from the target of the defamation. I do it here almost every day, usually without a request, because failing to do so renders the comments a wasteland of trolls, spammers, and people who derive some sense of spiritual satisfaction from rolling in filth.
Obviously, the management of Gab feels differently. Which is their right, but is also why the site will increasingly become a wasteland of trolls, slanderers, and people who derive some sense of spiritual satisfaction from rolling in filth. Since Gab did not take a reasonable stance at the start, their problem is only going to metastasize. I’m not surprised by any of this, in fact, I warned him in November that if he did not come up with a reasonable moderation policy, the site would eventually spin out of his control.
If people cannot get redress from Gab, they will seek it elsewhere. Andrew and Utsav really have no right to complain about how people do so when they are giving them no other choice. And yet, they are.
JeremiahEmbs · @JeremiahEmbs
So what’s the excuse for @FashDaddey calling me a child rapist?Is @a @u @support going to address this?Or are they going to pretend defamation is the same thing as free speech&make this site completely unusable for good people such as myself who will abandon this platform since it is not moderated.
JeremiahEmbs · @JeremiahEmbs
@a @u @support What are you going to do Torba? Asia Registry is being informed you are no longer immune under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act as the site appears to be designed for defamation as there is no recourse for those abused by it.
Andrew Torba@a
If our registrar requires us to remove something again we will publish it here and let everyone know that you whined to them because someone hurt your feelings with mean words on the internet.
As I said in last night’s Darkstream, Andrew Torba is simply not ready for prime time. I have advised him for nearly a year, I think he is a talented young man, and I genuinely like him, but he has repeatedly demonstrated that he is still too emotionally fragile for any high-stress position that brings him into contact with the public. And furthermore, I would immediately fire any customer support representative who ever responded to one of my customers that way.
