“We have been getting a million hits an hour all day.” Gab, a ‘free-speech’ oriented social media platform, posted this statement on Twitter after law-enforcement found that the Pittsburgh Tree of Life Synagogue shooter had posted anti-semitic content on the platform. Gab, founded in 2016, is a social media platform designed to provide alt-right extremists with an uncensored environment separate from Facebook and Twitter, something hinted at by the fact that the site’s logo pays homage to the co-opted anti-semitic “Pepe the Frog” cartoon. Its verified Twitter account regularly trolls users and the platform sees itself as a battlefield for what it calls America’s “culture war”. While the media was quick to place culpability for the shooting on Gab and its users, the tech companies that support and enable the website silently cut ties without denouncing the platform. The case of Gab is representative of a larger mentality that consumers have surrounding tech companies, one that lets companies who share in Gab’s profits off the hook. The role of well known tech companies in providing services has been essential to Gab’s rise. In the future, consumers must recognize and condemn the role of major companies in supporting and profiting off hateful content.
Gab, as a social media site with over 800,000 users, cannot function on its own. In order to run, the website needs a host of services ranging from payment systems to cloud storage. Specialized third party companies are largely responsible for providing these services. In the case of Gab, PayPal, GoDaddy, and Stripe provided essential services like domain registration and payment systems to the platform before the shooting. Most important to Gab is cloud computing capacity; without this, Gab cannot support the vast quantity of user data. Last summer, Microsoft Azure (Microsoft’s cloud computing arm), warned Gab that if two posts were not removed they would be dropped from Microsoft services. A month later Microsoft banned Gab. Gab, however, had no problem finding services elsewhere. Joylent, a privately held cloud computing company, carried Gab until the shooting in Pittsburgh. Following this, Gab was forced to shut down their website until an unknown provider allowed Gab to use their cloud based services. The identity of the unknown company is hidden by the internet security firm CloudFlare, who retained Gab even after the shooting. The blind eye turned towards Gab by these companies is even more appalling, considering that Apple and Google both banned Gab from their platforms over a year ago.
Yet today, Gab continues to thrive. It is still a verified account on Twitter and receives colossal amounts of media coverage. Its new domain name registrar, a privately held Seattle based company, Epik, seems to have no qualms with providing services to the platform. Epik’s founder, Robert Monster, sees the company as a “utility,” simply providing connection to the internet, rather than acting as an arbiter for hate.
There is a notable difference between companies like Epik and those that dropped Gab like PayPal, GoDaddy, and Microsoft: their ownership. The companies that have dropped Gab have mostly been publicly held, while every company currently providing services to Gab is private. These privately held companies are usually either supported by personal wealth (as in the case of Epik) or by venture funds (as in the case of CloudFlare). CloudFlare, which has a long history of supporting sites full of hate speech, is currently funded by three venture capital funds: Venrock, Pelion Venture Partners, and New Enterprise Associates- the world’s largest venture capital firm. It is up to these venture capital funds to hold companies like CloudFlare accountable, a concerning prospect for those seeking to de-platforn companies like Gab.
It is time to change the way that we think about the agency of those who support platforms like Gab. Companies like Twitter, PayPal, Stripe, and Microsoft – who provided services to Gab long after the platform’s nature had been brought to light – are not bound by a higher duty to uphold a right to free speech and nor should they be. Platforms like Gab should not be shut down by the government, but by no means do they have a right to the services of the private sector. Thus, investment in certain tech companies who grant services to Gab should be reframed as socially irresponsible.
The most effective organization in the movement to reduce the profitability of online hate is Sleeping Giants. Since web advertising services often do not tell companies every single website that their advertisements are posted on, many companies are unaware that their advertisements could end up next to hateful or bigoted content. Sleeping Giants’ central initiative is to cut into Breitbart’s advertising base. The initiative asks Twitter users to screenshot advertisements next to bigoted content and tag the company and Sleeping Giants in the advertisement. Since the start of their campaign, over 4,000 tagged companies have removed their advertisements from Breitbart. While this model will never be able to target the roles of larger companies that support hate, Sleeping Giants is a fantastic example of what ordinary consumers can do to counteract hate on the internet.
While Gab generates revenue from premium services rather than ads, pressure from activist organizations like Sleeping Giants can still play (and have played) a role in deplatforming Gab. Apple and Google were more responsive to such pressure after presence of hate speech first came to light. Others needed to see the tragedy in Pittsburgh before they decided to take action. What investors and consumers must keep in mind is that Gab is not solely culpable for these atrocities. Twitter is responsible for allowing Gab to remain a verified account. PayPal and Stripe are responsible for creating funding mechanisms for the platform. CloudFlare and Epik are responsible for allowing the platform to continue to exist after the Tree of Life Shooting. The investors that supports all of these companies – whether as shareholders or venture capital firms – must be held responsible to put pressure on these companies to deplatform hate.
Today, thanks to reports on the company’s role as a breeding ground for hate speech, Gab finds itself on unstable footing. Additionally, people are talking more and more about the role of tech companies like Twitter, Youtube, Instagram, and Facebook in spreading hate. While criticism of these platforms is justified, one group of companies is escaping blame. The next essential step to deplatform hate is to shine a light on companies that service hateful websites like Gab.
Photo: Digital Money Background