Some news accounts, like on the UK independent, indeed give graphic accounts of some of Gab's users.
Update: Oct. 29
Kevin Roose of the New York Times also reports that Godaddy pulled domain name registration. But the site does resolve Monday morning to a site that says Gab is under attack.
The Roose piece also makes the interesting point that tech companies fear that if their platforms allow everything, in time the content will shift to the most outrageous and extreme and become unusable for more civil customers.
The Washington Post (Ian Shapira et al) has a similar story, calling Gab a de facto "white supremacist sanctuary".
Vox "explains" Gab pretty well in an article by Jane Coaston. But the objection to Gab seems to center on what "groups" it attracts, not so much on actual individual user behavior. We're back to the idea of coordination inside groups and which groups should be allowed to organize -- which because of world history, is very difficult to face.
Here is Gab's tweet. I'm a little confused: it refers to Joyent as the new hosting provider? Was Godaddy the provider before?? Is the NYTimes completely correct on the facts on how it has been hosted? Gab also has the "share this everywhere" tweet promising to return.