Gab gave my account a strike for disseminating pornography. Here's why they are wrong about censoring me for my last article.
Context matters in every free speech discussion, and this is important to understand when engaging in free speech.
I would never have guessed that my last article was so controversial that the apparent “pinnacle” of free speech, Gab, would strike down anything associated with it.
For those that don’t know Gab, it is the epicenter of free speech and radical ideas on the internet; from Jewish space lasers and Christian nationalism to black Hebrew Israelites and Zionism.
But Gab is much more than that; once a refuge for anyone censored on social media, it is quickly organizing to be something dangerous to the WEF. Now Gab has a marketplace that is looking to chip away at Amazon, it has Dissenter which is a incredible news aggregator, it has a much better community section than Facebook in the way of groups, and it has AI bots that are programmed to bow to our Lord, Jesus Christ.
Gab is an incredibly interesting platform which will surely influence right-wing politics in the future, but it’s touchy about one thing in particular, nudity.
We have free content available for all subscribers, however, some of our content will be behind a paywall to help keep our organization going. If you want to donate to our cause instead of buying a paid subscription you can click here.
Please do me a favor by liking, subscribing and restacking this article to keep me favored in the algorithm. Substack’s algorithm is not a fan of me so I would appreciate your support. Thank you! Also now until February 1st, enjoy a 50% discount to my annual subscription, as a token of my gratitude for supporting my work.
Gab has every reason to be cautious when the photography of nudity is involved. We have all seen platforms like Twitter become infected with bots proliferating and disseminating pornography anywhere they can.
It’s honestly disgusting when you realize that the bots have only gotten worse under Elon Musk’s ownership of Twitter. Not to mention the fact that Musk has yet to reverse the decision to allow minors to use the platform.
But what constitutes appropriate nudity in the eyes of Gab? They don’t have an issue with classical paintings that display it, but they certainly have an issue with the picture below.
This picture is undoubtedly hideous and rather repulsive, however, that’s the point. The article that was banned on Gab was about how the Left is actively trying to decriminalize the purposeful infection of HIV in the state of Tennessee. The picture above shows an AI generated image of a dead women with HIV. It was meant to be controversial, because it’s an important subject and it deserves attention.
This is why context matters when you share graphic images such as the one above. Before Gab took down my article, it was well received in every news/politics group I posted it in (over 15 to be exact). The readers clearly saw the value of the post because I wasn’t trying to sexually entice anyone and I was most certainly not trying to sell a product with this “sexual” image. I was making a political statement with this image, and one that is very important.
I started a Discord server to host my work. I’m also inviting several other interesting writers to join me and create a great community to discuss ideas, politics, culture, and current events. You should consider joining me and the counter-culture. Click the picture above to get an invite link.
The picture of a man dying from HIV would not have elicited the same response as a woman, because not every man feels sadness when a man dies in sin, but we all feel sadness when a woman dies in sin. The woman’s nakedness lends to the vulnerability of the situation, not the sexual appeal of it.
Such a morbid picture tugs on the heart strings of men because it is the duty of a man to protect the vulnerable woman. A failure of this duty resonates with the man much more deeply than the failure of a man to protect himself, because men show love through sacrifice and respect.
and I are currently working on an article diving into that idea, so I will save the further talk on the subject to that article. We also haven’t set a date to publish it but I will keep all of you posted. Now back to the topic at hand.
One should note that my article was not meant to win me any fans, although it clearly did. That being said, I clearly don’t care if anyone even reads my work, in fact I think my writing is subpar at best and most likely peaked a month ago when I wrote this article about Jonathan M. Katz. However, I do want people to pay attention to the real issues I am bringing up in my articles. Even if people don’t subscribe to my work but read it and start to question what is going on in the world, that would be plenty for me.
The promulgation of the idea that, someone who purposefully engages in prostitution while also knowingly having HIV as an attack on the LGBT community is appalling to me, because it’s simply not true. Or perhaps it should be true. If the Left is going to try to infect people with HIV and convince people that prostitution is an acceptable form of work and practice, then they should be attacked.
Regardless, Gab needs to work on it’s moderation standards. If they don’t, platforms like Substack, which has had no issue with my article, will take over the free speech conversation. And having been quite pleased with
, , and on their united dedication to free speech, Gab will lose access to my work.And though I don’t want to be famous and I don’t think myself gifted in the art of writing, others do. I have had the pleasure of rubbing shoulders with
, , , , and many more that write so much better than myself. Yet, I am clearly doing something inspirational if they have shared my work.Gab would certainly be remiss to exclude people like me from the conversation by censoring my work, for the very fact that I bring with me an audience of influential people with unique ideas. I don’t know why these people follow me, perhaps it’s the fact that I have unwavering conviction, I refuse to gate-keep (gate-keepers get their teeth smashed in where I’m from), or because I dedicate my time to saving children.
Maybe it’s because I’m a man of substance, which Rachel considers as sexy. Like I told you Rachel, if you play your cards right you can buy me dinner, however, if you insist rather on playing roulette, just remember I hit every time.
As Rachel, Yuri, and John can attest to, I absolutely refuse to gate keep. Having established a connection with Serge from Timcast, I offered to bring on interesting guests to which he was more than appreciative of. Both Yuri and John were offered a chance to be on one of Tim Pool’s shows and Rachel was offered the chance to be on Ian Crossland’s show (I figured Ian and Rachel would have good chemistry because they operate on the same wavelength). And if any of them were to ask Serge, he would tell them right away that I never pitched myself to be on Timcast, despite my opportunity to show Tim Pool a new outlook on life because of my Eastern Orthodoxy.
I simply do not care anymore about advancing my own career at the expense of others. This is something that I will write about in the future, in regards to Timcast’s community and the gate keepers trying to become his employees, but for now that topic is on ice.
The last thing I will say is this, regardless of my beliefs and the beliefs of the others that follow me, Gab is severely mistaken by censoring my work. Context matters and if Gab was seriously focuses on free speech, they would have realized that my article was not pornography, it was art.
Nice work brother, very in depth. Screw gab, I feel like a lot of these other social sites have been co-opted by the liberal elite.
I used to post on Gab quiet a bit but have started to get away from it recently and find myself starting to spend more time here on substack. This is just a more level headed platform, at least for the time being.