Gab is positioning itself as a free speech alternative to the Jew owned social network censorship. It looks a genuinely good idea, but what makes me suspicious is the complete lack of professionalism of Gab owners.
First, Gab's design is clearly below average, like it was designed by an amateur kid.
Second, the brand itself is obviously demented. First of all, why "Gab"? You don't have to be a rocket scientist to name it at least correctly "Gabber", or something even more appealing, like "Freedome", because they say to be fighting for freedom, therefore the selfexplantory name "Freedome" is the first that comes to mind.
The Gab owners are claiming to be willing creating a valuable competitor, but it is obvious that they don't give a fuck. I just can't believe they can be so stupid to create something that goes against basic requirements to be competitive by missing such basics as appealing brand and well thought design.
I don't know about you, but when a site is half assed and obviously demented, it must be a honeypot.
view the rest of the comments →
senpaithatignoresyou ago
And now the first questions about social media start to hit.
Ever wonder why micorsoft, google, att, Cisco, or any of the giant tech companies never jumped on the twitter bandwagon? It's because it is not profitable.
That is why cheap amateurs are getting involved, it is not profitable for the bigger companies. It probably is not profitable for the amateurs.
Which begs a giant question: what the hell has been keeping twitter afloat? Government money.
Twitter has been the liberal flagship for tech, a means to alienate the normal people by making them feel obsolete. Only twitter does not make a profit, and the politicians that kept it afloat for propaganda reasons are now out of office.
sunshine702 ago
Saudi Arabia and Quatar also bought in years ago - that's why banning people that criticize Islam.