Talk:Gab (social network)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Remove Dissenter section?[edit]

Gab stopped developing the Dissenter browser some time ago it seems. News articles concerning it are over 2 years old. The dissenter website is now just a news aggregator it seems.

https://dissenter.com/

No mention of the old browser, which apparently you can't even download.

Thoughts about deleting this section for a defunct project? Apc3161 (talk) 03:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, unless we can find a source about the change, we can probably just delete it. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than deleting it entirely, perhaps a shortened version of the section should be merged into the 2019 history subsection. It was certainly noteworthy at the time, so deleting it outright doesn't seem appropriate. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In line with your suggestion, I was thinking of deleting the dissenter section, since it has been discontinued, and just copying some of the text over to the 2019 section as follows, thoughts?:
"In 2019, Gab launched a browser extension called Dissenter, an aggregation and discussion service which allowed Gab users to make non-moderated comments on any webpage including news articles, YouTube videos, and individual social media posts.[1] Comments made using the Dissenter extension were outside of the webpage owner's control, and the extension could be used to comment on websites with no comment feature or where the comment sections were closed. Dissenter was criticized as an extension which "puts a far-right comments section on every site."[2] The Dissenter extension was subsequently banned from the Google and Mozilla add-on stores for violating hate-speech policies. [3]. Following this removal, Gab created their own Dissenter browser, based on a fork of the Brave browser, which has since been discontinued. [4]" Apc3161 (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like a good change to me. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. Might be worth adding that the Dissenter extension has also been discontinued, assuming a reliable source for that exists. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gab AI[edit]

I created a section for Gab's new Chatbot AI. The section what accurate and concise as follows:

"In early 2024, Gab launched a chatbot service called Gab AI. In addition to the default chatbot, users can choose to interact with chatbots that impersonate well known historicals figures such as Plato, Thomas Jefferson, Confucius, and Mother Teresa."

It was removed, stating "it doesn't need its own l2 heading." I fail to see how Dissenter, a browser which has been discontinued for 4 years should have it's own section, but an AI chatbot and AI art generator that has 100,000 users and competes with Google's Gemini, ChatGPT, etc. should not have its own section.

I would like to add it back. Thoughts everyone? If it shouldn't have it's own section, where should I add this description? Apc3161 (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems this was added to the 2024 section. I still think Gab AI chatbot/image generator should have its own section. But I suppose having it in the 2024 section is also accurate. Apc3161 (talk) 02:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is very little third-party sourcing about this feature, so I don't think it warrants a full section of its own. Speaking of which, please cite reliable third-party sources to support content you add. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. Wikipedia policy states:
"The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. For example, the statement "the capital of France is Paris" does not require a source to be cited, nor is it original research, because it's not something you thought up and it is easily verifiable; therefore, no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it even if they are not cited. The statement is verifiable, even if not verified."
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
So if something is easily verifiable, no third party source is required. The fact that there are AI models for various historical figures is easy verifiable, just go to the website.
https://gab.ai/characters
You can easily verify that 100's of AI characters are available to chat with. That is why I mentioned Plato, Thomas Jefferson, Hitler, Lenin, and Confucius.
Why would only the AI bot for Hitler be mentioned? Doesn't seem logical to me, there are literally 100's of characters. I think we should mention a few of them to keep the article accurate.
Thoughts? Apc3161 (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why you're talking about the historical figure models. That's not relevant to this discussion. If your point is "it exists" well... that's not enough to justify a section about it. We need to demonstrate it's relevant to the article, and that's where third-party sources come in. If no one is talking about it, it's not worth including. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 23:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want a section about it. There is already a discussion on it. I just don't see how it makes logical sense, of the 100's of characters available, the only one this wiki article mentions is Hitler. Seems strange. Apc3161 (talk) 01:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not strange when you consider how controversial Hitler is, and that making a chatbot for people to interact with "him" is going to attract controversy. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that GorillaWarfare on 9 February 2024 replaced your list with Adolf Hitler, edit summary = "2024: adjust section to rely on secondary rather than primary sources", the secondary source being Rolling Stone. I'd be sympathetic to changing or reverting that if the cite is to https://gab.ai/characters -- it's probably okay according to WP:SELFPUB. (I'd say a full list is not unduly self-serving, what's undue would be a writer's opinion that only one person on the list matters.) But I don't see why you picked the "historical figures" that you picked, and would be happier with "users can choose to interact with chatbots including some that impersonate historical figures", no names. Alternatively we could say nothing at all. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC) Update: I asked gab.ai "does gab ai have a chatbot based on adolf hitler?" and the reply was "No ...". Peter Gulutzan (talk)[reply]
I'm leaning towards "nothing at all" personally. It's another fad chatbot, with figures selected for shock value. It's not WP:DUE for inclusion. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. We should cite the page itself and write something just as you suggested:
"In early 2024, Gab launched a beta version of a chatbot service called Gab AI. In addition to the default chatbot, users can choose to interact with chatbots which impersonate historical figures. Gab AI can also function as a text-to-image model to produce artificial intelligence art."
Accurate. Concise. Neutral.
Thoughts? Apc3161 (talk) 01:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay be me, but if GorillaWarfare and HandThatFeeds object then we don't have consensus, and in that case I think the fallback should be to remove entirely since the GorillaWarfare version doesn't have consensus either, assuming you object to it as much as I do. Let's see first whether they both object. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to removal. My concern was about having a section on a topic that was entirely sourced to Gab itself — a concern that is reintroduced by Apc's proposal. If this is noteworthy enough to mention, we should see what RS have to say and follow their lead. Otherwise, it should be omitted. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if our only source is the Gab page, then all that says is "it exists." That flies in the face of WP:DUE, much less WP:RS, so it just needs to come out. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the section. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be discussed because AI, per them, is one of if not their main focus now. It should probably have its own section (especially if the Dissenter has its own section, which hasn't existed for years), but should at least be added into the 2024 section. So let's try do build a consensus then. How about this?
"In early 2024, Gab launched a chatbot service called Gab AI. In addition to the default chatbot, users can choose to interact with chatbots which impersonate numerous historical figures, including controversial figures such as Vladimir Putin.[5]. Gab AI can also made use of a text-to-image model to produce artificial intelligence art.[6]"
This is accurate, concise, cites reliable sources per Wikipedia guidelines, and neutral. I would like to hear suggestions in order to build a consensus. Apc3161 (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gab’s Racist AI Chatbots Have Been Instructed to Deny the Holocaust
Yeah. I think your brief paragraph, plus the above cite, is about all we need on the topic. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely doesn't need its own section, though. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ "Gab wants to add a comments section to everything on the internet".
  2. ^ "Gab browser extension puts a far-right comments section on every site".
  3. ^ "Google Deals New Blow to Alt-Right Social Network Gab".
  4. ^ "What is Gab.com?".
  5. ^ "The rise of the Hitler chatbot: Will Europe be able to prevent far right radicalisation by AI?".
  6. ^ "White Supremacist Networks Gab and 8Kun Are Training Their Own AI Now".

White & Black[edit]

The text "White" in this article should be capitalized, as it refers to the racial group, and there are already two instances of the word "Black" that are capitalized. MOS:RACECAPS AppGoo0011 (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gab is not accessible from Israel, should this be added?[edit]

Gab is not accessible from Israel, should this be added? Reciprocist (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's particularly relevant. And we'd need reliable sources that cover it, in any case. I doubt it would pass WP:DUE. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per the above, seems (assuming is can be sourced) pretty trvial. Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boycotts after pay policy change[edit]

This should be added to the history section.LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 03:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lets wait until we see the result. Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gab_(social_network)&oldid=1222912825"