10 ms·

I feel like "the damage is done" so to speak and Parler will forever be associated with negative connotations. Not just the associations with January 6th, but a

I feel like "the damage is done" so to speak and Parler will forever be associated with negative connotations. Not just the associations with January 6th, but also with security breaches and having such detailed personal information leak from it. It missed it's shot at becoming a social media platform and I don't see why people wold come back to it now that it is on the App Store again. The free speech crowd has moved onto other platforms and the Trump people are awaiting Mike Lindell's new platform and/or the Donald Trump social media site that's rumored to be in the works.

tenebrisalietum 5y ago
AFAIK the people that hold the negative connotations are not the people that were on the platform in the first place. I think people who were will likely flock back to it.
r00fus 5y ago
Perhaps all of that negative association was well deserved. I also feel the data dump of Parler messages was worse than getting delisted.
ogre_codes 5y ago
> Parler will forever be associated with negative connotations. Parler was created so people would be free of Twitter "Censorship". About the only thing Twitter censored was threats of violence or rape, election misinformation, or extremely blatant racism. Their only appeal was to people who found that kind of speech acceptable. If you market primarily to violent and racist people, you are absolutely going to be associated with negative connotations.
- bobthechef 5y ago
  Who told you that? I know of many cases where accounts were silenced for none of these reasons. Most recently, the Project Veritas guy was banned from Twitter for his "fake account" after posting a video of a CNN technical director describing CNN's role in ousting Trump[0]. [0] https://techcrunch.com/2021/04/15/twitter-bans-james-okeefe-of-project-veritas-over-fake-account-policy/ https://techcrunch.com/2021/04/15/twitter-bans-james-okeefe-...
  - sixothree 5y ago
    Was that why Parler was created?
- nostromo 5y ago
  > About the only thing Twitter censored was threats of violence or rape, election misinformation, or extremely blatant racism. Twitter blocked the NYPost because they didn't approve of their entirely factual journalism.
  - kbar13 5y ago
    cannot tell if sarcasm because the NYPost is very much not entirely factual lol
    - bobthechef 5y ago
      Ad hominem is in bad taste. And mind you, the same can be said of the major news outlets (NYTimes, etc).
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - hcurtiss 5y ago
      There's been a lot of validation of the Biden laptop story, which was the impetus for Twitter shutting down NYPost.
      - jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
        There most definitely has not. It remains entirely unsubstantiated, while several other claims in the post story are directly contradicted by ample public records.
        patwolf 5y ago
        It's not accurate to say it was "entirely unsubstantiated". Other news sources besides the NY Post (most recently the Daily Mail) have claimed it was authentic, and Biden himself hasn't disputed its authenticity. Regardless of the laptop though, there's clearly a double standard in what Twitter will block with or without proof. The Russian bounty program that was widely reported by the Washington Post and others during the election cycle was unsubstantiated, but no effort was made to block it.
- luxuryballs 5y ago
  Parler censored a post referencing “breast milk” so I don’t buy for a second that it wasn’t always about political censorship.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - heterodoxxed 5y ago
    A ton of leftist comedians joined to crack jokes about right-wing people on there and they were almost all immediately banned.
- mc32 5y ago
  They also block any skepticism around COVID-19, origins, transmissibility, whether toddlers need it, efficacy, side-effects, etc. I’m against anti-vaxxers as any rational person, but you ought not censor discussion around it, particularly when we’re still learning about the disease, treatment, counter measures, etc. They allow doxxing of some people but then have policies against doxxing of other people. So there is good reason for an alternative if we want DIA-logue rather than echo-chambers.
  - ogre_codes 5y ago
    I’m ok with Twitter blocking people who are ciculating lies that are prolonging the virus which has fucked our economy and killed millions of people. Conspiracy theories about viruses are literally killing people. I’d file that right in the category of shouting fire in a crowded theater.
    - mc32 5y ago
      Twitter is not Official News (Granma, Pravda) nor is it the Ministry of Truth (though it tries) Even when we read official statements and we accept Twitter's censorship, we don’t actually know if Twitter is making the right or wrong call. WHO and CDC officials have equivocated themselves multiple times. Meaning they have contradicted themselves meaning they have countered their own arguments. Debate is healthy. Suppression is not healthy. It’s getting to be Orwellian and Dystopian. They are allowed to be wrong but not others. They are allowed to re-write history. China has it where you report fellow citizens for "mistaken beliefs". I fear we're going down the same path and people are doing it happily. It's concerning.
- zionic 5y ago
  This is incredibly false, Twitter bans for silly things all the time. A friend was permabanned for saying pit bulls commit a disproportionate number of dog attacks. Linking dog attack statistics didn’t matter. Screw Twitter and their censorship, and people like you need to stop doing their dirty work for them and pretending everything is ok.
  - sixothree 5y ago
    Parler was not created because of the reasons you cited.
- starik36 5y ago
  > the only thing Twitter censored was threats of violence There were plenty of calls to violence during last year's summer riots. Twitter didn't censor any of it.
  - ogre_codes 5y ago
    Twitter rarely “censors” anything. There are countless examples of people getting multiple death threats and Twitter just blowing it off. Female journalists are frequently targeted with rape and death threats for posting things which are only moderately controversial and Twitter waves it off “this isn’t a violation of Twitter policy”. The people who were blocked at all were generally repeat offenders.
- downandout 5y ago
  About the only thing Twitter censored was threats of violence or rape, election misinformation, or extremely blatant racism. One of these things is not like the others. Equating rape threats with what Twitter unilaterally decided was “election misinformation” and using that as a basis to silence a sitting President of the United States is an extreme case of censorship that justifiably scared anyone with views that divert even slightly from Silicon Valley’s brand of extreme leftism. Even Jack Dorsey acknowledged that Twitter had entered into dangerous territory with this move [1]. Specifically, he said it ”sets a precedent I feel is dangerous: the power an individual or corporation has over a part of the global public conversation.” [1] https://twitter.com/jack/status/1349510769268850690?s=21 https://twitter.com/jack/status/1349510769268850690?s=21
  - AlexandrB 5y ago
    The idea that monopolist, for-profit enterprises are practicing "extreme leftism" belies how far right the US is, at least economically.
    - downandout 5y ago
      I agree with you that Silicon Valley is an odd mixture of socialist ideals and unbridled capitalism. For example, we have tax dodging corporations like Apple pushing to elect people that have a stated goal of implementing massive tax-and-spend initiatives. Somehow it all makes sense in their minds. A cynical person would say that they are just siding with whatever side happens to be popular at the time in order to make more money, knowing that they will be able to avoid the effects of such policies through international tax avoidance schemes. But I think that many of these guys actually believe the things they say, which is an interesting dichotomy.
      - michaelmrose 5y ago
        This is easier than you are making it. The right majority has gone off the deep end. The farthest left minority would jack up taxes substantially. The left moderate majority would increase taxes somewhat in a way that leads to long term prosperity. Allowing the right to take the country on the crazy train to moral and economic destitution is bad for business and the furthest left are a manageable risk. The smart money is in on supporting moderate right and blue majority.
- sneak 5y ago
  > About the only thing Twitter censored was threats of violence or rape, election misinformation, or extremely blatant racism. This is false. Twitter also censors search, which operates over the tweets they allowed to be posted.
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  > About the only thing Twitter censored was threats of violence or rape, election misinformation, or extremely blatant racism. > Their only appeal was to people who found that kind of speech acceptable. If you market primarily to violent and racist people, you are absolutely going to be associated with negative connotations. This is not just explicitly false, it is a gish gallop of unsubstantiated insinuations about Parler and/or their customers. I spent some time on Parler, and I was expecting a hellscape but instead literally did not see even one example of the type of content you are listing out here. If it exists, it is exceedingly rare, which makes sense considering Parler had 20 million users. The vast majority of the content was people posting the same content they post on other platforms, to build up a presence on Parler. As for your claims about what Twitter censors - it is certainly not as limited as you claim. Some examples: 1) They censored Zero Hedge from talking about the Wuhan lab leak theory and banned them for months before reinstating them, under the very dubious claim that they "doxxed" the head of the lab, whose contact information was provided on the Wuhan lab website as the public contact for the lab. More recently, once other people starting talking about the Wuhan lab leak theory, it was suddenly okay. 2) Twitter blocked NY Post's story about Hunter Biden under a vague "hacked materials" policy (https://nypost.com/2020/10/15/twitter-changes-hacked-materials-guidelines-after-post-controversy/ https://nypost.com/2020/10/15/twitter-changes-hacked-materia...) - meanwhile, they allowed the NY Times and others to post about Trump's private financial data, and allow "hacktivists" to share illegally obtained materials with no consequence. 3) Twitter censored posts about BLM's founder spending millions on real estate (https://nypost.com/2021/04/16/social-media-again-silences-the-post-for-reporting-the-news/ https://nypost.com/2021/04/16/social-media-again-silences-th...) There's a more extensive list of inconsistent, one-sided application of censorship in social media at https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/15/11-hacks-leaks-and-hoaxes-that-twitter-and-facebook-didnt-throttle-because-they-hurt-trump/ https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/15/11-hacks-leaks-and-hoax... and https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/free-speech/nb-staff/2020/05/28/33-examples-twitters-anti-conservative-bias https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/free-speech/nb-staff/2020/.... Other articles compiling censorship actions also appear in web searches, and they too go far beyond the types of censorship you mentioned. It is clear that US tech giants - who are more influential than most nations - are not in the business of facilitating open discourse and a diversity of ideas. They are simply ideologically biased in their rampant censorship, which is why alternative platforms, heavier regulation, and a renewal of antitrust law are needed.
psychometry 5y ago
>Parler will forever be associated with negative connotations Well, seeing as how it was created specifically to host content that moral, reasonable people would find objectionable, it's a fair association.
- Veen 5y ago
  > moral, reasonable people Is that code for progressives?
EEMac 5y ago
The damage is done to Parler, but also to Apple. Apple has established, clearly and publicly, that you will not say anything they disapprove of with their devices. (This affects Discord also: https://www.osnews.com/story/133306/discord-will-block-nsfw-servers-on-ios/ https://www.osnews.com/story/133306/discord-will-block-nsfw-...) How long people put up with this is another question.
- sneak 5y ago
  More importantly: The pistol emoji has been replaced with a squirt gun, injecting Apple's political views into plain text documents, and, You can't type the Taiwanese flag emoji on an iPhone in the PRC region at all.
- minhazm 5y ago
  No they didn't. They established that they won't distribute apps that have speech that violates their terms. This is how Apple has always operated. You can always go open a browser and visit any website you want and write whatever you want and Apple can't do anything about it.
  - anaganisk 5y ago
    May be, for now.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  Apple has always been quite heavy-handed with the developers on its platforms regarding user experiences. Its users generally appear to consider that a feature, not a bug, so I don't anticipate any changes. People have been predicting users walking away from Apple's version of Omelas for over a quarter-century; hasn't happened yet.
- moomin 5y ago
  I hate to tell you... but that was not news. It was literally one of the justifications Steve Jobs gave for the Apple Store’s existence.
brohoolio 5y ago
The damage is not done. Parler is the kind of app my dad will install on his phone and continue his radicalization. I have no issues with him being conservative, I rather enjoy dialog with all sorts of folks. But the disconnect with reality is really something else.
- zionic 5y ago
  Doesn't your comment presuppose that "radicalization" does not happen on twitter? Or are you just ok with the kind of radicalization twitter supports?

tenebrisalietum 5y ago

AFAIK the people that hold the negative connotations are not the people that were on the platform in the first place. I think people who were will likely flock back to it.

r00fus 5y ago

Perhaps all of that negative association was well deserved. I also feel the data dump of Parler messages was worse than getting delisted.

ogre_codes 5y ago

> Parler will forever be associated with negative connotations. Parler was created so people would be free of Twitter "Censorship". About the only thing Twitter censored was threats of violence or rape, election misinformation, or extremely blatant racism. Their only appeal was to people who found that kind of speech acceptable. If you market primarily to violent and racist people, you are absolutely going to be associated with negative connotations.

bobthechef 5y ago
Who told you that? I know of many cases where accounts were silenced for none of these reasons. Most recently, the Project Veritas guy was banned from Twitter for his "fake account" after posting a video of a CNN technical director describing CNN's role in ousting Trump[0]. [0] https://techcrunch.com/2021/04/15/twitter-bans-james-okeefe-of-project-veritas-over-fake-account-policy/ https://techcrunch.com/2021/04/15/twitter-bans-james-okeefe-...
- sixothree 5y ago
  Was that why Parler was created?
nostromo 5y ago
> About the only thing Twitter censored was threats of violence or rape, election misinformation, or extremely blatant racism. Twitter blocked the NYPost because they didn't approve of their entirely factual journalism.
- kbar13 5y ago
  cannot tell if sarcasm because the NYPost is very much not entirely factual lol
  - bobthechef 5y ago
    Ad hominem is in bad taste. And mind you, the same can be said of the major news outlets (NYTimes, etc).
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - hcurtiss 5y ago
    There's been a lot of validation of the Biden laptop story, which was the impetus for Twitter shutting down NYPost.
    - jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
      There most definitely has not. It remains entirely unsubstantiated, while several other claims in the post story are directly contradicted by ample public records.
      - patwolf 5y ago
        It's not accurate to say it was "entirely unsubstantiated". Other news sources besides the NY Post (most recently the Daily Mail) have claimed it was authentic, and Biden himself hasn't disputed its authenticity. Regardless of the laptop though, there's clearly a double standard in what Twitter will block with or without proof. The Russian bounty program that was widely reported by the Washington Post and others during the election cycle was unsubstantiated, but no effort was made to block it.
luxuryballs 5y ago
Parler censored a post referencing “breast milk” so I don’t buy for a second that it wasn’t always about political censorship.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- heterodoxxed 5y ago
  A ton of leftist comedians joined to crack jokes about right-wing people on there and they were almost all immediately banned.
mc32 5y ago
They also block any skepticism around COVID-19, origins, transmissibility, whether toddlers need it, efficacy, side-effects, etc. I’m against anti-vaxxers as any rational person, but you ought not censor discussion around it, particularly when we’re still learning about the disease, treatment, counter measures, etc. They allow doxxing of some people but then have policies against doxxing of other people. So there is good reason for an alternative if we want DIA-logue rather than echo-chambers.
- ogre_codes 5y ago
  I’m ok with Twitter blocking people who are ciculating lies that are prolonging the virus which has fucked our economy and killed millions of people. Conspiracy theories about viruses are literally killing people. I’d file that right in the category of shouting fire in a crowded theater.
  - mc32 5y ago
    Twitter is not Official News (Granma, Pravda) nor is it the Ministry of Truth (though it tries) Even when we read official statements and we accept Twitter's censorship, we don’t actually know if Twitter is making the right or wrong call. WHO and CDC officials have equivocated themselves multiple times. Meaning they have contradicted themselves meaning they have countered their own arguments. Debate is healthy. Suppression is not healthy. It’s getting to be Orwellian and Dystopian. They are allowed to be wrong but not others. They are allowed to re-write history. China has it where you report fellow citizens for "mistaken beliefs". I fear we're going down the same path and people are doing it happily. It's concerning.
zionic 5y ago
This is incredibly false, Twitter bans for silly things all the time. A friend was permabanned for saying pit bulls commit a disproportionate number of dog attacks. Linking dog attack statistics didn’t matter. Screw Twitter and their censorship, and people like you need to stop doing their dirty work for them and pretending everything is ok.
- sixothree 5y ago
  Parler was not created because of the reasons you cited.
starik36 5y ago
> the only thing Twitter censored was threats of violence There were plenty of calls to violence during last year's summer riots. Twitter didn't censor any of it.
- ogre_codes 5y ago
  Twitter rarely “censors” anything. There are countless examples of people getting multiple death threats and Twitter just blowing it off. Female journalists are frequently targeted with rape and death threats for posting things which are only moderately controversial and Twitter waves it off “this isn’t a violation of Twitter policy”. The people who were blocked at all were generally repeat offenders.
downandout 5y ago
About the only thing Twitter censored was threats of violence or rape, election misinformation, or extremely blatant racism. One of these things is not like the others. Equating rape threats with what Twitter unilaterally decided was “election misinformation” and using that as a basis to silence a sitting President of the United States is an extreme case of censorship that justifiably scared anyone with views that divert even slightly from Silicon Valley’s brand of extreme leftism. Even Jack Dorsey acknowledged that Twitter had entered into dangerous territory with this move [1]. Specifically, he said it ”sets a precedent I feel is dangerous: the power an individual or corporation has over a part of the global public conversation.” [1] https://twitter.com/jack/status/1349510769268850690?s=21 https://twitter.com/jack/status/1349510769268850690?s=21
- AlexandrB 5y ago
  The idea that monopolist, for-profit enterprises are practicing "extreme leftism" belies how far right the US is, at least economically.
  - downandout 5y ago
    I agree with you that Silicon Valley is an odd mixture of socialist ideals and unbridled capitalism. For example, we have tax dodging corporations like Apple pushing to elect people that have a stated goal of implementing massive tax-and-spend initiatives. Somehow it all makes sense in their minds. A cynical person would say that they are just siding with whatever side happens to be popular at the time in order to make more money, knowing that they will be able to avoid the effects of such policies through international tax avoidance schemes. But I think that many of these guys actually believe the things they say, which is an interesting dichotomy.
    - michaelmrose 5y ago
      This is easier than you are making it. The right majority has gone off the deep end. The farthest left minority would jack up taxes substantially. The left moderate majority would increase taxes somewhat in a way that leads to long term prosperity. Allowing the right to take the country on the crazy train to moral and economic destitution is bad for business and the furthest left are a manageable risk. The smart money is in on supporting moderate right and blue majority.
sneak 5y ago
> About the only thing Twitter censored was threats of violence or rape, election misinformation, or extremely blatant racism. This is false. Twitter also censors search, which operates over the tweets they allowed to be posted.
throwawaysea 5y ago
> About the only thing Twitter censored was threats of violence or rape, election misinformation, or extremely blatant racism. > Their only appeal was to people who found that kind of speech acceptable. If you market primarily to violent and racist people, you are absolutely going to be associated with negative connotations. This is not just explicitly false, it is a gish gallop of unsubstantiated insinuations about Parler and/or their customers. I spent some time on Parler, and I was expecting a hellscape but instead literally did not see even one example of the type of content you are listing out here. If it exists, it is exceedingly rare, which makes sense considering Parler had 20 million users. The vast majority of the content was people posting the same content they post on other platforms, to build up a presence on Parler. As for your claims about what Twitter censors - it is certainly not as limited as you claim. Some examples: 1) They censored Zero Hedge from talking about the Wuhan lab leak theory and banned them for months before reinstating them, under the very dubious claim that they "doxxed" the head of the lab, whose contact information was provided on the Wuhan lab website as the public contact for the lab. More recently, once other people starting talking about the Wuhan lab leak theory, it was suddenly okay. 2) Twitter blocked NY Post's story about Hunter Biden under a vague "hacked materials" policy (https://nypost.com/2020/10/15/twitter-changes-hacked-materials-guidelines-after-post-controversy/ https://nypost.com/2020/10/15/twitter-changes-hacked-materia...) - meanwhile, they allowed the NY Times and others to post about Trump's private financial data, and allow "hacktivists" to share illegally obtained materials with no consequence. 3) Twitter censored posts about BLM's founder spending millions on real estate (https://nypost.com/2021/04/16/social-media-again-silences-the-post-for-reporting-the-news/ https://nypost.com/2021/04/16/social-media-again-silences-th...) There's a more extensive list of inconsistent, one-sided application of censorship in social media at https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/15/11-hacks-leaks-and-hoaxes-that-twitter-and-facebook-didnt-throttle-because-they-hurt-trump/ https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/15/11-hacks-leaks-and-hoax... and https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/free-speech/nb-staff/2020/05/28/33-examples-twitters-anti-conservative-bias https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/free-speech/nb-staff/2020/.... Other articles compiling censorship actions also appear in web searches, and they too go far beyond the types of censorship you mentioned. It is clear that US tech giants - who are more influential than most nations - are not in the business of facilitating open discourse and a diversity of ideas. They are simply ideologically biased in their rampant censorship, which is why alternative platforms, heavier regulation, and a renewal of antitrust law are needed.

psychometry 5y ago

>Parler will forever be associated with negative connotations Well, seeing as how it was created specifically to host content that moral, reasonable people would find objectionable, it's a fair association.

Veen 5y ago
> moral, reasonable people Is that code for progressives?

EEMac 5y ago

The damage is done to Parler, but also to Apple. Apple has established, clearly and publicly, that you will not say anything they disapprove of with their devices. (This affects Discord also: https://www.osnews.com/story/133306/discord-will-block-nsfw-servers-on-ios/ https://www.osnews.com/story/133306/discord-will-block-nsfw-...) How long people put up with this is another question.

sneak 5y ago
More importantly: The pistol emoji has been replaced with a squirt gun, injecting Apple's political views into plain text documents, and, You can't type the Taiwanese flag emoji on an iPhone in the PRC region at all.
minhazm 5y ago
No they didn't. They established that they won't distribute apps that have speech that violates their terms. This is how Apple has always operated. You can always go open a browser and visit any website you want and write whatever you want and Apple can't do anything about it.
- anaganisk 5y ago
  May be, for now.
shadowgovt 5y ago
Apple has always been quite heavy-handed with the developers on its platforms regarding user experiences. Its users generally appear to consider that a feature, not a bug, so I don't anticipate any changes. People have been predicting users walking away from Apple's version of Omelas for over a quarter-century; hasn't happened yet.
moomin 5y ago
I hate to tell you... but that was not news. It was literally one of the justifications Steve Jobs gave for the Apple Store’s existence.

brohoolio 5y ago

The damage is not done. Parler is the kind of app my dad will install on his phone and continue his radicalization. I have no issues with him being conservative, I rather enjoy dialog with all sorts of folks. But the disconnect with reality is really something else.

zionic 5y ago
Doesn't your comment presuppose that "radicalization" does not happen on twitter? Or are you just ok with the kind of radicalization twitter supports?