Parler

[Deleted]

Has anyone heard of this?  Are you using it?

My neighbor posted about it so I signed up.  I told her that I was KWTJ.  

I don't really see the point, but then I don't do Twitter.  I had an assistant principal that insisted I incorporate it into lesson plans.  That made me hate it.  Lol.

[chiver78]

I've heard about it today, from some of the Bible Belt, Trump Kool-aid drinking music friends in my world. I looked into it a little, and in all honesty, it sounds like QAnon, the social network. If you disagree, I welcome evidence to the contrary.

Please delete it. if you can't or won't, please be safe. and remember to consider the source(s) of whatever you read.

[justme]

Someone I know posted it. It's the crazy conservative answer to Facebook and Twitter supposedly censoring them. They're offering like $20k for one liberal politician or commentator to sign up because not a single one has.

I won't touch it with a 10 for pole, but would love if the idiots follow through with deleting their Facebook like they say.

[weltschmerz]

Nov 9, 2020 0:41:55 GMT -5 justme said:

Someone I know posted it. It's the crazy conservative answer to Facebook and Twitter supposedly censoring them. They're offering like $20k for one liberal politician or commentator to sign up because not a single one has.

I won't touch it with a 10 for pole, but would love if the idiots follow through with deleting their Facebook like they say.

So why did they give it French name? I thought conservatives didn't care for France....see Freedom fries.
Parler means "to speak" in French.

[justme]

Nov 9, 2020 2:35:23 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Nov 9, 2020 0:41:55 GMT -5 justme said:

Someone I know posted it. It's the crazy conservative answer to Facebook and Twitter supposedly censoring them. They're offering like $20k for one liberal politician or commentator to sign up because not a single one has.

I won't touch it with a 10 for pole, but would love if the idiots follow through with deleting their Facebook like they say.

So why did they give it French name? I thought conservatives didn't care for France....see Freedom fries.
Parler means "to speak" in French.

You ask like I would either know or give a fuck 🤣🤣

I only know what I know cuz I googled it when a friend posted a delete your Facebook and join parler event and I was like wtf is that you're older than me why have you heard of this? Which was answered quickly by my not being crazy.

[weltschmerz]

I just find it odd.

[Opti]

www.engadget.com/parler-free-speech-social-network-rules-180050222.html

Twitter conservatives, long frustrated by the site’s supposed “anti-conservative bias” have a new platform of choice: Parler. The app, which bills itself as the “free speech social network,” has become a kind of social media haven for the right in recent weeks, thanks to high-profile endorsements from Republican lawmakers and other influential conservatives.



The app was launched in 2018, but has spiked in popularity after Ted Cruz and others tweeted they were joining the app. California Rep.Devin Nunes also declared his support for Parler soon after a court ruled the congressman couldn’t sue Twitter over a parody cow account that mocked him.

The app has been downloaded more than 870,000 times in the last two weeks according to data from analytics firm Sensor Tower. That’s close to half of the app’s total installs — 1.8 million, according to Sensor Tower — since it launched in 2018. This week, Parler has ranked among the top apps in the App Store and Google Play.



At the same time, many of the app’s new users have reportedly found the “free speech social network” to be less welcoming than one might expect of a social network premised on free speech. Twitter users, many of whom may have joined the app to troll Parler’s conservative users — have since said they were banned.

Additionally, the app’s terms of service states the app can remove posts or ban users for any reason at all — even if they’re following the rules. It also has a questionable clause that states users can be liable for the company’s legal fees should they be sued as the result of a post.

[chiver78]

Nov 9, 2020 3:07:58 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

I just find it odd.

I did, too.

[buystoys]

Isn't that what they were told to do if they didn't like FB or Twitter's rules?  I know I've read (in more than one place) the comment to like it or leave.  I see it kind of like the early FB and MySpace argument.  MySpace was better for setting up music on your page since you couldn't do that with FB, etc.  So people can make comments on Parler that they couldn't make on FB or Twitter.  I don't see the problem. 

[TheOtherMe]

I saw this morning one of my Trumper friends says he is leaving FB and going to Parler.   Have fun.

[imawino]

Nov 9, 2020 7:19:15 GMT -5 buystoys said:

Isn't that what they were told to do if they didn't like FB or Twitter's rules?  I know I've read (in more than one place) the comment to like it or leave.  I see it kind of like the early FB and MySpace argument.  MySpace was better for setting up music on your page since you couldn't do that with FB, etc.  So people can make comments on Parler that they couldn't make on FB or Twitter.  I don't see the problem. 

Theoretically, there is certainly no problem with having a site dedicated to conservative viewpoints - lots of those exist already.  But Twitter and Facebook aren't censoring normal conservative opinions, talking points, ideas, etc.  My understanding is the only time any posts are removed are when they are spreading potentially dangerous false information or inciting violence.  So if it is a site specifically to allow the spread of false information that is detrimental to our democracy and promotes violence like the idea of kidnapping and executing democratic governors, there is potentially a big problem.

I think a large part of the problem is these people believing their posts are censored BECAUSE they are conservative, as opposed to because they are dangerous and/or inaccurate.  

[buystoys]

Nov 9, 2020 8:57:55 GMT -5 imawino said:

Nov 9, 2020 7:19:15 GMT -5 buystoys said:

Isn't that what they were told to do if they didn't like FB or Twitter's rules?  I know I've read (in more than one place) the comment to like it or leave.  I see it kind of like the early FB and MySpace argument.  MySpace was better for setting up music on your page since you couldn't do that with FB, etc.  So people can make comments on Parler that they couldn't make on FB or Twitter.  I don't see the problem. 

Theoretically, there is certainly no problem with having a site dedicated to conservative viewpoints - lots of those exist already.  But Twitter and Facebook aren't censoring normal conservative opinions, talking points, ideas, etc.  My understanding is the only time any posts are removed are when they are spreading potentially dangerous false information or inciting violence.  So if it is a site specifically to allow the spread of false information that is detrimental to our democracy and promotes violence like the idea of kidnapping and executing democratic governors, there is potentially a big problem.

I think a large part of the problem is these people believing their posts are censored BECAUSE they are conservative, as opposed to because they are dangerous and/or inaccurate.  

I don't know if I agree with you or disagree.  I've seen FB postings that say all Trump voters should be shot or hung.  And the person posting it wasn't kidding and it was allowed for days.  That's not the only one I've seen so I have to question the impartiality of FB when it comes to censoring.  I've also seen many posts that Republican governors should be shot.  Those didn't get removed as far as I know.  My cousin re-posted something fairly mild and got a FB holiday for a week for it.  I have no idea what it was because it was removed, but I know my cousin isn't a hot head either.  He's pretty middle of the road in his politics.

This is an area where Congress has continued to fail us.  I don't blame conservatives for creating their own site.  It's up to them to set their own rules and policing since Congress hasn't shown a willingness to provide oversight of social media.

[Deleted]

weltschmerz, parley is an English word meaning "to hold a conference with the opposing side to discuss terms."  It is related to the French word, of course, as much of our language (and Canada's in general) is because of the Norman Conquest, but is more specific.  I wouldn't say that they "gave it a French name."

I figured they were making a pun as in parler meaning to speak and parlor meaning a place.  But I'll admit that I am probably giving the creators too much credit.

chiver78, I did end up deleting my account.  As I posted on FB, neither my life nor my political views are interesting enough to require an additional social media platform.  And that's true.  I'm still not using Twitter or Instagram or Snapchat.  I use FB to keep up with my friends' activities, not their politics.

[imawino]

Nov 9, 2020 9:08:32 GMT -5 buystoys said:

Nov 9, 2020 8:57:55 GMT -5 imawino said:

Theoretically, there is certainly no problem with having a site dedicated to conservative viewpoints - lots of those exist already.  But Twitter and Facebook aren't censoring normal conservative opinions, talking points, ideas, etc.  My understanding is the only time any posts are removed are when they are spreading potentially dangerous false information or inciting violence.  So if it is a site specifically to allow the spread of false information that is detrimental to our democracy and promotes violence like the idea of kidnapping and executing democratic governors, there is potentially a big problem.

I think a large part of the problem is these people believing their posts are censored BECAUSE they are conservative, as opposed to because they are dangerous and/or inaccurate.  

I don't know if I agree with you or disagree.  I've seen FB postings that say all Trump voters should be shot or hung.  And the person posting it wasn't kidding and it was allowed for days.  That's not the only one I've seen so I have to question the impartiality of FB when it comes to censoring.  I've also seen many posts that Republican governors should be shot.  Those didn't get removed as far as I know.  My cousin re-posted something fairly mild and got a FB holiday for a week for it.  I have no idea what it was because it was removed, but I know my cousin isn't a hot head either.  He's pretty middle of the road in his politics.

This is an area where Congress has continued to fail us.  I don't blame conservatives for creating their own site.  It's up to them to set their own rules and policing since Congress hasn't shown a willingness to provide oversight of social media.

Facebook does basically nothing for censoring hate speech and false information and they are ridiculously proud of that sad fact.  It's really Twitter that conservatives have been in an uproar about.  I should not have included FB in my original post - I was just reading this site was seen as an alternative to both FB and Twitter.  

In regards to posts that say someone "should be shot", I don't think those are typically going to be removed.  That's not perceived as a real threat, that's a thing people have always just said.  It's not ideal language for sure but it's no indicator that real violence is being organized.

[chiver78]

Nov 9, 2020 9:08:32 GMT -5 buystoys said:

Nov 9, 2020 8:57:55 GMT -5 imawino said:

Theoretically, there is certainly no problem with having a site dedicated to conservative viewpoints - lots of those exist already.  But Twitter and Facebook aren't censoring normal conservative opinions, talking points, ideas, etc.  My understanding is the only time any posts are removed are when they are spreading potentially dangerous false information or inciting violence.  So if it is a site specifically to allow the spread of false information that is detrimental to our democracy and promotes violence like the idea of kidnapping and executing democratic governors, there is potentially a big problem.

I think a large part of the problem is these people believing their posts are censored BECAUSE they are conservative, as opposed to because they are dangerous and/or inaccurate.  

I don't know if I agree with you or disagree.  I've seen FB postings that say all Trump voters should be shot or hung.  And the person posting it wasn't kidding and it was allowed for days.  That's not the only one I've seen so I have to question the impartiality of FB when it comes to censoring.  I've also seen many posts that Republican governors should be shot.  Those didn't get removed as far as I know.  My cousin re-posted something fairly mild and got a FB holiday for a week for it.  I have no idea what it was because it was removed, but I know my cousin isn't a hot head either.  He's pretty middle of the road in his politics.

This is an area where Congress has continued to fail us.  I don't blame conservatives for creating their own site.  It's up to them to set their own rules and policing since Congress hasn't shown a willingness to provide oversight of social media.

I have so many things I want to ask and say about what I bolded here. but all I can do is sit here with my jaw hanging open. 

[imawino]

Nov 9, 2020 9:08:32 GMT -5 buystoys said:

Nov 9, 2020 8:57:55 GMT -5 imawino said:

Theoretically, there is certainly no problem with having a site dedicated to conservative viewpoints - lots of those exist already.  But Twitter and Facebook aren't censoring normal conservative opinions, talking points, ideas, etc.  My understanding is the only time any posts are removed are when they are spreading potentially dangerous false information or inciting violence.  So if it is a site specifically to allow the spread of false information that is detrimental to our democracy and promotes violence like the idea of kidnapping and executing democratic governors, there is potentially a big problem.

I think a large part of the problem is these people believing their posts are censored BECAUSE they are conservative, as opposed to because they are dangerous and/or inaccurate.  

I don't know if I agree with you or disagree.  I've seen FB postings that say all Trump voters should be shot or hung.  And the person posting it wasn't kidding and it was allowed for days.  That's not the only one I've seen so I have to question the impartiality of FB when it comes to censoring.  I've also seen many posts that Republican governors should be shot.  Those didn't get removed as far as I know.  My cousin re-posted something fairly mild and got a FB holiday for a week for it.  I have no idea what it was because it was removed, but I know my cousin isn't a hot head either.  He's pretty middle of the road in his politics.

This is an area where Congress has continued to fail us.  I don't blame conservatives for creating their own site.  It's up to them to set their own rules and policing since Congress hasn't shown a willingness to provide oversight of social media.

It's really not just hate speech that is dangerous.  Let's say a post that declares wearing a mask is just a deep state effort to kill your grandma because breathing in her own CO2 is a scientifically proven way to murder conservatives is removed or labeled false.  The problem is the conservatives who have themselves convinced it was removed because it is conservative, rather than the fact that it is a dangerous lie that will lead to unnecessary deaths.   

So again, a conservative discussion forum is not a problem.  It's the fact that people don't understand that their posts aren't being removed because they are conservative that is a true danger.  The idea that conservatives are being persecuted is nonsense.  

[happyhoix]

Just what the far right needs, their own echo chamber.

We’ve seen the kind of crazy conspiracy theories they come up with on their own (I’m looking at you QAnon), wonder how much worse it will be when the far right hive mind mingles together with Chinese and Russian trolls and has the time and space to really ferment.

[Tennesseer]

Nov 9, 2020 2:35:23 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Nov 9, 2020 0:41:55 GMT -5 justme said:

Someone I know posted it. It's the crazy conservative answer to Facebook and Twitter supposedly censoring them. They're offering like $20k for one liberal politician or commentator to sign up because not a single one has.

I won't touch it with a 10 for pole, but would love if the idiots follow through with deleting their Facebook like they say.

So why did they give it French name? I thought conservatives didn't care for France....see Freedom fries.
Parler means "to speak" in French.

It started out as general social media site and non-partisan. Therfore it's name.

It wasn't until later according to Wiki:

"Parler launched in August 2018, and its user base grew to 100,000 users by May 2019.[22][23] A December 2018 tweet by conservative activist Candace Owens brought 40,000 of those users to the site, causing Parler's servers to malfunction.[23][24] The site initially attracted some Republican personalities including former Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale, Utah Senator Mike Lee, and Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani, and some who were banned from other social media networks such as the far-right activists and commentators Gavin McInnes, Laura Loomer, and Milo Yiannopoulos.[16][23] Reuters wrote that Parler had "mostly been a home for supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump" until June 2019. Matze told the news organization that although he had intended Parler to be bipartisan, the site had focused its marketing efforts toward conservatives as they began to embrace the website.[16]"

[oped]

Conservatives have been trying to organize an exit from twitter to parler for while now. Ted Cruz especially. Its a running joke. 

[TheOtherMe]

I have seen friends on both sides get breaks from FB.  From the posts I saw, they each earned their vacation.

[Tennesseer]

Nov 9, 2020 11:28:51 GMT -5 TheOtherMe said:

I have seen friends on both sides get breaks from FB.  From the posts I saw, they each earned their vacation.

My anti-trump SIL is a three time Facebook offender. Has been imprisoned three times by them. SIL and recidivism go hand-in-hand.

[justme]

Nov 9, 2020 9:44:51 GMT -5 imawino said:

Nov 9, 2020 9:08:32 GMT -5 buystoys said:

I don't know if I agree with you or disagree.  I've seen FB postings that say all Trump voters should be shot or hung.  And the person posting it wasn't kidding and it was allowed for days.  That's not the only one I've seen so I have to question the impartiality of FB when it comes to censoring.  I've also seen many posts that Republican governors should be shot.  Those didn't get removed as far as I know.  My cousin re-posted something fairly mild and got a FB holiday for a week for it.  I have no idea what it was because it was removed, but I know my cousin isn't a hot head either.  He's pretty middle of the road in his politics.

This is an area where Congress has continued to fail us.  I don't blame conservatives for creating their own site.  It's up to them to set their own rules and policing since Congress hasn't shown a willingness to provide oversight of social media.

It's really not just hate speech that is dangerous.  Let's say a post that declares wearing a mask is just a deep state effort to kill your grandma because breathing in her own CO2 is a scientifically proven way to murder conservatives is removed or labeled false.  The problem is the conservatives who have themselves convinced it was removed because it is conservative, rather than the fact that it is a dangerous lie that will lead to unnecessary deaths.   

So again, a conservative discussion forum is not a problem.  It's the fact that people don't understand that their posts aren't being removed because they are conservative that is a true danger.  The idea that conservatives are being persecuted is nonsense.  

Yes - on FB they were upset that they were pulling down videos on vaccines and early in the pandemic the one with the nutcase that was ousted from research places basically saying this was all planned. It was circling around with all the 5G conspiracy theories....I forget the exact things of it but conservatives were sharing it like mad until it disappeared. 

[justme]

Nov 9, 2020 10:48:51 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Just what the far right needs, their own echo chamber.

We’ve seen the kind of crazy conspiracy theories they come up with on their own (I’m looking at you QAnon), wonder how much worse it will be when the far right hive mind mingles together with Chinese and Russian trolls and has the time and space to really ferment.

Wikipedia mentions a lot of Saudi nationalists. 

[chiver78]

Nov 9, 2020 11:43:05 GMT -5 justme said:

Nov 9, 2020 9:44:51 GMT -5 imawino said:

It's really not just hate speech that is dangerous.  Let's say a post that declares wearing a mask is just a deep state effort to kill your grandma because breathing in her own CO2 is a scientifically proven way to murder conservatives is removed or labeled false.  The problem is the conservatives who have themselves convinced it was removed because it is conservative, rather than the fact that it is a dangerous lie that will lead to unnecessary deaths.   

So again, a conservative discussion forum is not a problem.  It's the fact that people don't understand that their posts aren't being removed because they are conservative that is a true danger.  The idea that conservatives are being persecuted is nonsense.  

Yes - on FB they were upset that they were pulling down videos on vaccines and early in the pandemic the one with the nutcase that was ousted from research places basically saying this was all planned. It was circling around with all the 5G conspiracy theories....I forget the exact things of it but conservatives were sharing it like mad until it disappeared. 

I've seen a lot of whining about election fraud without evidence of it, basically just echoing 45, and how mad they are that Twitter is flagging posts like those as false information. it seems like the mass exodus is from people that refuse to believe that the world is not out to get 45 and his supporters because of hatred/jealousy of excellence/whatever garbage spin. and yes, it's going to become an echo chamber for them. should be a fun time for the rest of us to deal with them as they spread the garbage unchecked. 

[justme]

Nov 9, 2020 11:54:45 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

Nov 9, 2020 11:43:05 GMT -5 justme said:

Yes - on FB they were upset that they were pulling down videos on vaccines and early in the pandemic the one with the nutcase that was ousted from research places basically saying this was all planned. It was circling around with all the 5G conspiracy theories....I forget the exact things of it but conservatives were sharing it like mad until it disappeared. 

I've seen a lot of whining about election fraud without evidence of it, basically just echoing 45, and how mad they are that Twitter is flagging posts like those as false information. it seems like the mass exodus is from people that refuse to believe that the world is not out to get 45 and his supporters because of hatred/jealousy of excellence/whatever garbage spin. and yes, it's going to become an echo chamber for them. should be a fun time for the rest of us to deal with them as they spread the garbage unchecked. 

Yeah, I know twitter fact checks more than FB. It's only those wildly false videos I saw FB removing. I've seen the election fraud though. Someone who I have deleted yet posted a meme of the highest handmaiden in the land saying something like it'd be a shame if someone canceled Joe's win. And someone posted "It'd be so great if democracy was subverted by partisan judges" and she said we shall see. 

[Cheesy FL-Vol]

Nov 8, 2020 22:35:03 GMT -5 @bamafan1954 said:

Has anyone heard of this?  Are you using it?

My neighbor posted about it so I signed up.  I told her that I was KWTJ.  

I don't really see the point, but then I don't do Twitter.  I had an assistant principal that insisted I incorporate it into lesson plans.  That made me hate it.  Lol.

I want to know why it has been insisted to use in your lesson plans? Are you an educator in a public school? If so, the ramifications of the education administrative level insisting on what is (in my perception) extremism is alarming.

[andi9899]

Nov 9, 2020 8:13:22 GMT -5 TheOtherMe said:

I saw this morning one of my Trumper friends says he is leaving FB and going to Parler.   Have fun.

At least maybe that will contain them all to one place. One can hope.

[imawino]

Nov 9, 2020 13:10:29 GMT -5 Cheesy FL-Vol said:

Nov 8, 2020 22:35:03 GMT -5 @bamafan1954 said:

Has anyone heard of this?  Are you using it?

My neighbor posted about it so I signed up.  I told her that I was KWTJ.  

I don't really see the point, but then I don't do Twitter.  I had an assistant principal that insisted I incorporate it into lesson plans.  That made me hate it.  Lol.

I want to know why it has been insisted to use in your lesson plans? Are you an educator in a public school? If so, the ramifications of the education administrative level insisting on what is (in my perception) extremism is alarming.

I believe she is referring to Twitter, with regard to including it in lesson plans.  

[buystoys]

Nov 9, 2020 9:44:51 GMT -5 imawino said:

Nov 9, 2020 9:08:32 GMT -5 buystoys said:

I don't know if I agree with you or disagree.  I've seen FB postings that say all Trump voters should be shot or hung.  And the person posting it wasn't kidding and it was allowed for days.  That's not the only one I've seen so I have to question the impartiality of FB when it comes to censoring.  I've also seen many posts that Republican governors should be shot.  Those didn't get removed as far as I know.  My cousin re-posted something fairly mild and got a FB holiday for a week for it.  I have no idea what it was because it was removed, but I know my cousin isn't a hot head either.  He's pretty middle of the road in his politics.

This is an area where Congress has continued to fail us.  I don't blame conservatives for creating their own site.  It's up to them to set their own rules and policing since Congress hasn't shown a willingness to provide oversight of social media.

It's really not just hate speech that is dangerous.  Let's say a post that declares wearing a mask is just a deep state effort to kill your grandma because breathing in her own CO2 is a scientifically proven way to murder conservatives is removed or labeled false.  The problem is the conservatives who have themselves convinced it was removed because it is conservative, rather than the fact that it is a dangerous lie that will lead to unnecessary deaths.   

So again, a conservative discussion forum is not a problem.  It's the fact that people don't understand that their posts aren't being removed because they are conservative that is a true danger.  The idea that conservatives are being persecuted is nonsense.  

I get what you're saying.  I do.  But people are going to believe what they want to.  So if conservatives believe they are being unfairly "judged" (not the word I want but my mind is going blank here) and choose to create their own forum, why not let them?  Isn't that kind of what built up 4chan or QAnon or some site like that?  Personally, I avoid those sites so have no clue what the topic du jour is, but what's wrong with just letting the site go?  Especially since we don't have specific rules to govern social media postings.  Section 230 needs to be reviewed and revised.

[imawino]

Nov 9, 2020 13:52:50 GMT -5 buystoys said:

Nov 9, 2020 9:44:51 GMT -5 imawino said:

It's really not just hate speech that is dangerous.  Let's say a post that declares wearing a mask is just a deep state effort to kill your grandma because breathing in her own CO2 is a scientifically proven way to murder conservatives is removed or labeled false.  The problem is the conservatives who have themselves convinced it was removed because it is conservative, rather than the fact that it is a dangerous lie that will lead to unnecessary deaths.   

So again, a conservative discussion forum is not a problem.  It's the fact that people don't understand that their posts aren't being removed because they are conservative that is a true danger.  The idea that conservatives are being persecuted is nonsense.  

I get what you're saying.  I do.  But people are going to believe what they want to.  So if conservatives believe they are being unfairly "judged" (not the word I want but my mind is going blank here) and choose to create their own forum, why not let them?  Isn't that kind of what built up 4chan or QAnon or some site like that?  Personally, I avoid those sites so have no clue what the topic du jour is, but what's wrong with just letting the site go?  Especially since we don't have specific rules to govern social media postings.  Section 230 needs to be reviewed and revised.

I wasn't suggesting that it be stopped from operating, and I don't think anyone else was.  So I'm not exactly sure what you are asking me.  I'm just pointing out that the belief that there is a "need" for it (as in conservatives not being allowed on all the other sites) is stupid and wrong.  Twitter and facebook are full of conservatives posting conservative ideas - an exodus to a new space is only needed if you want to be free to post potentially dangerous and demonstrably false information and you want to be 100% certain that no one will try to stop you.  And that does have a potential to be dangerous.  But crazies gonna do what crazies gonna do.