> As far as I remember the details, Gab forked Mastodon, after being effectively frozen out of the fediverse by all the other instances and indexes.
Gab, after its backend switch, has always been a fork of Mastodon instead of a stock implementation. Some Mastodon instances exercised their free speech (free association) rights by blocking Gab afterward, and some websites exercised their right to free speech by choosing not to mention Gab. Other Mastodon instances did not block Gab, and there were also websites that listed Gab alongside other fediverse services.
The owner of Gab later exercised his free speech rights when he decided to remove Mastodon's federation feature from Gab, turning Gab back to a single-instance monolithic social network like Twitter. By doing this, Gab exited the fediverse and no longer met the criteria for inclusion on websites that list fediverse services. Of course, there are websites that list social networks in general, which do include Gab.
> But if you really believe in free speech, you shouldn't just defend it for people you agree with.
Promoting or hosting content from Gab on a website is not a necessary condition for exercising free speech. This is because free speech includes free association, and website owners can opt to exercise their free speech rights by choosing not to promote or host content from Gab. The owner of Gab also exercised his free speech right by changing Gab to not interoperate with other Mastodon instances and fediverse services. As far as every party in this situation is concerned, the exercise of free speech has been upheld.
While it is no longer possible to host a Mastodon instance, it's still possible to create a website that lists Gab alongside anything you want. If none of the existing websites have the content you want to see, go ahead and exercise your free speech right to make one yourself.
Late edit: "While it is no longer possible to host a Mastodon instance" should be "While it is no longer possible to host a Mastodon instance that interoperates with Gab".
Gab, after its backend switch, has always been a fork of Mastodon instead of a stock implementation. Some Mastodon instances exercised their free speech (free association) rights by blocking Gab afterward, and some websites exercised their right to free speech by choosing not to mention Gab. Other Mastodon instances did not block Gab, and there were also websites that listed Gab alongside other fediverse services.
The owner of Gab later exercised his free speech rights when he decided to remove Mastodon's federation feature from Gab, turning Gab back to a single-instance monolithic social network like Twitter. By doing this, Gab exited the fediverse and no longer met the criteria for inclusion on websites that list fediverse services. Of course, there are websites that list social networks in general, which do include Gab.
> But if you really believe in free speech, you shouldn't just defend it for people you agree with.
Promoting or hosting content from Gab on a website is not a necessary condition for exercising free speech. This is because free speech includes free association, and website owners can opt to exercise their free speech rights by choosing not to promote or host content from Gab. The owner of Gab also exercised his free speech right by changing Gab to not interoperate with other Mastodon instances and fediverse services. As far as every party in this situation is concerned, the exercise of free speech has been upheld.
While it is no longer possible to host a Mastodon instance, it's still possible to create a website that lists Gab alongside anything you want. If none of the existing websites have the content you want to see, go ahead and exercise your free speech right to make one yourself.