Gab Emerges as the True Speech Platform, Contrasting The ADL’s Strategy For X/Twitter

A newly surfaced undercover video has revealed a concerning truth: the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) seems to be exerting a significant amount of influence over the policies of X (formerly known as Twitter.) The video implies that the ADL may be calling the shots at X with the primary objective of preventing users from joining alternative platforms like Gab.

This may explain the palpable shift in the X’s marketed approach to free speech contrasted with an ADL-led policy of “freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach.” On the same day this footage was released X CEO Linda Yaccarino appeared on MSNBC to tell the world that X would be censoring “lawful but awful” content and that their primary policy going forward will be the ADL’s demanded strategy: “freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach.”

These people love using subjective terms and phrases that rhyme in an effort to sell you censorship while at the same time pretending to promote free speech. Terms like “healthy” “hateful” and “awful” are all undefined by the ADL and X, giving them the ability to decide that anything they want fits within the very wide frame of these subjective terms and qualifies for censorship.

In stark contrast to X’s evolving stance, Gab has positioned itself as a true bastion of free speech for the past seven years. Unlike X’s adoption of the “freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach” philosophy, Gab stands firm in its dedication to preserving both aspects of free speech: being able to say what you want while having other people actually be able to hear what you are saying. This doesn’t mean those people have to continue associating with you after they see what you say, but it also doesn’t mean that you are shouting into the void all alone.

As I’ve written about in the past, there is no freedom of speech without freedom of reach. If you are sitting alone in your basement talking to the wall you have all the “free speech” in the world, but what is the point if no one can hear you? At the behest of the ADL, that’s X’s new policy for people they deem to be “awful.”

The phrase “freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach” has gained prominence in the discourse surrounding X’s recent policies, but where did this phrase originate from? The term was coined and first used by Jonathan Greenblatt, the CEO of the ADL, on April 5th, 2022. Interestingly enough just nine days later on April 14th, 2022, Elon Musk started the process of acquiring Twitter. This phrase encapsulates the ADL’s new strategy of permitting speech while limiting its visibility. In previous years the ADL’s strategy was to get people banned completely from Big Tech platforms.

As we learned in the recent undercover video that strategy failed because millions of people simply went to Gab, a platform the ADL has zero influence or control over. This terrifies the ADL. They thrive on their power to influence and control the flow of information online and the last thing they want you to do is leave the platforms they control and join the single platform on the internet they don’t: Gab.

X’s new “speech not reach” approach has been met with skepticism, as it appears to be a calculated attempt to maintain control over the narrative while feigning support for free speech ideals. Just weeks after the deal closed one of the very first things Elon did was announce Twitter’s (the ADL’s) new policies: freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach.

A Containment Zone Cloaked as Free Speech
The contrast between Gab’s unwavering dedication to free speech and X’s shifting approach prompts us to consider the underlying motives. X’s adoption of “freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach” raises suspicions that the platform may be creating an ADL containment zone, allowing users to express themselves into the void within limited confines. This strategy has led critics to question whether X’s supposed commitment to free speech is merely a facade to draw in the right wing in time for election season.

The lure of a blue checkmark and the illusion of free speech may have also enticed users to share personal information unknowingly, while being confined to a limited shadowbanned corner of the platform speaking to themselves.

As the battle for free speech intensifies in the digital realm, the divergence between Gab and X becomes increasingly apparent. The ADL’s influence on X’s policies and the contrasting approaches to free speech have sparked a broader conversation about the future of online discourse. The events of this groundbreaking day prompt us to reflect on the power dynamics at play and the implications for the preservation of open dialogue in the digital age.

Over the course of seven years, Gab has carved its path as a bastion of free speech, resolutely refusing to bow to pressures from censorship proponents, including the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and even multiple governments. One of the defining moments in Gab’s history came when we refused to succumb to demands from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) to censor certain content. Gab’s response reflected its steadfast stance: to prioritize free speech while providing tools for users to self-moderate.

Gab’s seven-year history stands as a testament to its unwavering commitment to preserving free speech. Through ups and downs, controversies and triumphs, Gab has refused to waver in its dedication to providing a space where open dialogue can flourish. As discussions around online censorship and content moderation continue to evolve, Gab’s journey serves as a reminder that the battle to protect free speech is an ongoing endeavor that requires vigilance, empathy, and a resolute belief in the power of unfettered speech.

Andrew Torba
CEO, Gab.com
Jesus Christ is King of kings

---

Invest and become a shareholder in Gab! Gab is currently selling shares in its business in a Regulation Crowdfunding investment round conducted pursuant to Section 4(a)(6) of the Securities Act of 1933. Click here to be directed to the crowdfunding portal to learn more about the offering.