(06-27-2020 04:45 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  I should. It would be nice to see all these independent thinkers that will 100% think the same thing at all times.

It's actually quite diverse and not simply a conservative echo chamber.

(06-30-2020 12:25 PM)gdunn Wrote:  Parler put out a challenge for any liberal to join and have a rational discussion. They would pay them $10k, but no trolling, name calling, and had to have the discussion or it was null and void.

That's going to be the thing though. Who's going to be discussing with them? Because Parler's goal is not to be the bastion of rational discussion. You can't interest enough people that way and you won't make money. If you could, C-Span would have the highest ratings on television. Their goal is to be a place where conservatives can go as wild as they perceive liberals to be doing on Twitter. That's where the money is.

(06-30-2020 12:35 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(06-27-2020 04:45 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  I should. It would be nice to see all these independent thinkers that will 100% think the same thing at all times.

It's actually quite diverse and not simply a conservative echo chamber.

We'll see.

(06-30-2020 12:38 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(06-30-2020 12:25 PM)gdunn Wrote:  Parler put out a challenge for any liberal to join and have a rational discussion. They would pay them $10k, but no trolling, name calling, and had to have the discussion or it was null and void.

That's going to be the thing though. Who's going to be discussing with them? Because Parler's goal is not to be the bastion of rational discussion. You can't interest enough people that way. If you could, C-Span would have the highest ratings on television. Their goal is to be a place where conservatives can go as wild as they perceive liberals to be doing on Twitter. That's where the money is.

I'm sorry..

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnscottle...b170ee4b14

I was wrong, it's now $20k

According to Parler’s statement, the challenge is to “produce a series of Parleys, constructive and thoughtful discussions to search for common ground on difficult issues.”

Parler Strategic Investor Jeffrey Wernick says it’s time for liberals and conservatives to have discourse on equal footing without censorship.


“Current Parler members are largely libertarians and conservatives, but honest liberals and progressives should support free speech and hate Twitter censorship, indoctrination and dehumanization too,” Wernick added. “No army of Twitter bots to shout people down. Parley. Maybe even find common ground.”

Wonder why no lib has jumped on this. Go for it Nomad...

3. He or she must have a following of 50,000 or more on a competing social media platform.

Quote:Parler seems to be banning a bunch of people. And it has the right to do so. Which is great. But what's not great is the site continues to pretend that it's some "free speech alternative" to Twitter when it's facing the same exact content moderation issues. And, yes, some people are claiming that Parler's quick trigger finger is mostly about shutting down "left" leaning accounts, but as with Twitter's content moderation, I won't say that for sure unless I see some actual evidence to support it.

What I will say is that when politicians like Ted Cruz say he's joining Parler because it doesn't have "censorship," he's wrong. Same with basically every other foolish person screaming about how Parler is about "free speech." It's got the same damn content moderation questions every platform has. And it's pretty silly for Parler's CEO to refer to Twitter as a "techno-fascist" company for its content moderation policies, when his company appears to be doing basically the same thing. Amusingly, the CEO is also claiming that "If you can say it on the street of New York, you can say it on Parler. Except that later in that same article, he admits: "You can’t spam people’s comment sections with unrelated content." Except, you kinda can do that on the "street of New York." (I recall there being more than one street in New York, but whatever). Anyway, this was always bogus, as you can see from the fact that so many accounts are being banned.

As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like

Muh censorship.

Interesting...I signed up an account. In the setup, they automatically mark you to follow a bunch of right wing news sites and politicians. So, naturally I unselected all of them for now so I could choose on my own who to follow. But now that my account is activated, I'm following all those folks I marked that I didn't want to follow.

(06-30-2020 12:56 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

Quote:Parler seems to be banning a bunch of people. And it has the right to do so. Which is great. But what's not great is the site continues to pretend that it's some "free speech alternative" to Twitter when it's facing the same exact content moderation issues. And, yes, some people are claiming that Parler's quick trigger finger is mostly about shutting down "left" leaning accounts, but as with Twitter's content moderation, I won't say that for sure unless I see some actual evidence to support it.

What I will say is that when politicians like Ted Cruz say he's joining Parler because it doesn't have "censorship," he's wrong. Same with basically every other foolish person screaming about how Parler is about "free speech." It's got the same damn content moderation questions every platform has. And it's pretty silly for Parler's CEO to refer to Twitter as a "techno-fascist" company for its content moderation policies, when his company appears to be doing basically the same thing. Amusingly, the CEO is also claiming that "If you can say it on the street of New York, you can say it on Parler. Except that later in that same article, he admits: "You can’t spam people’s comment sections with unrelated content." Except, you kinda can do that on the "street of New York." (I recall there being more than one street in New York, but whatever). Anyway, this was always bogus, as you can see from the fact that so many accounts are being banned.

As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like

Muh censorship.

Yeah. At least Gab waited a year or so before they started content curation on the level that Parler's doing right out of the gates. It's a joke.

(06-30-2020 01:09 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Interesting...I signed up an account. In the setup, they automatically mark you to follow a bunch of right wing news sites and politicians. So, naturally I unselected all of them for now so I could choose on my own who to follow. But now that my account is activated, I'm following all those folks I marked that I didn't want to follow.

Okay, so I cleared out all those I did not want to follow, leaving me following 7 people. However, the settings say I'm following 16 people. Interesting...

EDIT: It now correctly shows 7. Not sure why the slight delay.

Also, do you need to enter a captcha string and confirm a code every time you logout and back in?

That seems maddening.

A few years ago I changed Twitter from social media one direction high signal to noise news sources. And none of those news sources are "mainstream media" based. It's think tanks and subject area experts. I haven't looked back.

(06-29-2020 10:47 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Not on Twitter...wont be in Parler.

I've found that I get better "news" info from Twitter than FB. My problem with twitter is that they have a leftist bias and feel smug and comfortable because they think there is no other option.

And that's why I signed up on Parler:
1. The (hopeful) lack of bias
2. To do my small part to show Twitter there is a viable alternative

Competition in the market place is a good thing.

(06-29-2020 10:33 AM)GrayBeard Wrote:  POTUS is now on Parler...

That does not appear to be the case. I see only a bunch of parody and news accounts and one perhaps from his official campaign, nothing looks officially from him personally.

(06-30-2020 12:25 PM)gdunn Wrote:  Parler put out a challenge for any liberal to join and have a rational discussion. They would pay them $10k, but no trolling, name calling, and had to have the discussion or it was null and void.

Dang. I wonder if I could pass as a lib.

(06-30-2020 01:37 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(06-30-2020 12:25 PM)gdunn Wrote:  Parler put out a challenge for any liberal to join and have a rational discussion. They would pay them $10k, but no trolling, name calling, and had to have the discussion or it was null and void.

Dang. I wonder if I could pass as a lib.

You need 50k followers on a competitor.

(06-30-2020 12:53 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  3. He or she must have a following of 50,000 or more on a competing social media platform.

That's nothing... Don Lemon has 1.1M followers on Twitter. Rachel Maddow has 10.1M.

50,000 kinda leaves it open to almost anyone.

(06-30-2020 12:56 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

Quote:Parler seems to be banning a bunch of people. And it has the right to do so. Which is great. But what's not great is the site continues to pretend that it's some "free speech alternative" to Twitter when it's facing the same exact content moderation issues. And, yes, some people are claiming that Parler's quick trigger finger is mostly about shutting down "left" leaning accounts, but as with Twitter's content moderation, I won't say that for sure unless I see some actual evidence to support it.

What I will say is that when politicians like Ted Cruz say he's joining Parler because it doesn't have "censorship," he's wrong. Same with basically every other foolish person screaming about how Parler is about "free speech." It's got the same damn content moderation questions every platform has. And it's pretty silly for Parler's CEO to refer to Twitter as a "techno-fascist" company for its content moderation policies, when his company appears to be doing basically the same thing. Amusingly, the CEO is also claiming that "If you can say it on the street of New York, you can say it on Parler. Except that later in that same article, he admits: "You can’t spam people’s comment sections with unrelated content." Except, you kinda can do that on the "street of New York." (I recall there being more than one street in New York, but whatever). Anyway, this was always bogus, as you can see from the fact that so many accounts are being banned.

As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like

Muh censorship.

PARLER CEO issues statement on banning users…

(06-30-2020 03:54 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

(06-30-2020 12:56 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

Quote:Parler seems to be banning a bunch of people. And it has the right to do so. Which is great. But what's not great is the site continues to pretend that it's some "free speech alternative" to Twitter when it's facing the same exact content moderation issues. And, yes, some people are claiming that Parler's quick trigger finger is mostly about shutting down "left" leaning accounts, but as with Twitter's content moderation, I won't say that for sure unless I see some actual evidence to support it.

What I will say is that when politicians like Ted Cruz say he's joining Parler because it doesn't have "censorship," he's wrong. Same with basically every other foolish person screaming about how Parler is about "free speech." It's got the same damn content moderation questions every platform has. And it's pretty silly for Parler's CEO to refer to Twitter as a "techno-fascist" company for its content moderation policies, when his company appears to be doing basically the same thing. Amusingly, the CEO is also claiming that "If you can say it on the street of New York, you can say it on Parler. Except that later in that same article, he admits: "You can’t spam people’s comment sections with unrelated content." Except, you kinda can do that on the "street of New York." (I recall there being more than one street in New York, but whatever). Anyway, this was always bogus, as you can see from the fact that so many accounts are being banned.

As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like

Muh censorship.

PARLER CEO issues statement on banning users…

As Paul Harvey would have said.....