3 ms·

> You can't state that as fact. The platform itself was not inherently about spreading objectionable material. It was about being more free than Twitter. No ma

• shuntress 6y ago
  I find it comical that the more egalitarian solution[0] to enabling widespread free speech is outright rejected by the typical Parler user with some indistinct shouting about government overreach, regulation, or "competition in the marketplace". [0] mentioned in the article: "I wish they[sic] were interoperable implementations of a protocol, rather than individual silos, but..."
• bArray 6y ago
  That's just their word - I would want to see the exact reason they were banned. Perhaps they were playing the internet troll game of "see how quickly I can get banned for Twitter points". Some amount of context seems fair surely? Also the Parler system is that you essentially are sandboxed for a short period of time when you first join - if you get tonnes of negative responses you get removed. So the fact they got removed in the first 24 hours makes sense. So: No man, it wasn't. They are just lying to you. Try to be more credulous.