You're trying to redirect the conversation. Gab is a honeypot. Argue against that point
Go glow somewhere else.
No, I'm not redirecting anything. You repeatedly made a claim that Gab is a honeypot. I'm asking you to substantiate that comment with evidence, which should be easy to do with archive sites. So far you have not.
No, you were askng for an example of when gab censored something other than calls to voilence. An example of such would not be evidence of a honeypot.
If you don't understand why that's significant, it just proves my point: you don't understand what a honeypot is.
A honeypot is a technique used by spooks to entrap a mark. An attractive agent, generally of the opposite sex, seduces the mark and uses that intimate relationship to gather intelligence, and often to blackmail the mark. A great example of a honeypot is what Maxwell and Epstein did, where they used underage girls to seduce powerful men into pedophilic relationships, which were then used to blackmail said powerful people, or at least ensure their compliance with the agendas of their employers. In this case, the underage girls and their handlers Epstein and Maxwell were executing a honeypot.
The term honeypot is often misused (as you are misusing it) to describe sites like Parler and Gettr, which are deliberately setup to gather opposing voices into a captured environment where they can be more easily managed and controlled, using the usual techniques in the Gentleman's guide to forum spying.
So yeah, I know what a fucking honeypot is. You don't, because you keep misusing the term. I'm overlooking the fact that you don't know what a honeypot is, and allowing you to misuse the term to describe a site like Gettr or Parler, in the rapidly diminishing hope that you'll actually share something proving that Gab secretly exists for narrative control.
I'm realizing you are a fucking idiot who is doing nothing but waste my time, so I'm giving up now. Have a nice day.
(post is archived)