MSNBC: Parler Does Censor, Removes Users, and Really Hates Trolling (msnbc.com) 187
For seekers of a right-leaning free-speech utopia, "Parler may turn out to be, in the end, a false refuge," warns Marc Ambinder at MSNBC:
First — sorry, folks — Parler does censor. It removes users, regularly. It does not actually seem to tolerate hate speech, and because it's a much smaller platform, it might even be more efficient in finding and exorcising it than the social giants. Oh, and the founders really, really don't like trolling. This includes the sort of trolling that feeds the outrage cycles on Twitter, the trolling that includes scatology and expletives and "unrelated comments." [Parler also says they'll enforce their rules against obscene user names, any kind of pornography, and even the spamming of "people trying to speak" with "unrelated comments"] Also, dog poop. Parler doesn't like dog poop...
On Wednesday, [Parler CEO Dan Bongino], of all people, had to knock down what might have been Parler's first piece of conservative-on-conservative viral misinformation: a screenshot of a Fox News chyron alleging that George Soros was actually the owner of Parler. "Friends," Bongino wrote on Twitter (!), "This is a photoshopped image. THIS IS NOT REAL. There are people who are desperate to take down Parler who are spreading BS hoping you'll buy it. I OWN PARLER. This is the 4th or 5th time I've had to fight back against this stuff."
Sorry, Dan. It won't be the last.
On Wednesday, [Parler CEO Dan Bongino], of all people, had to knock down what might have been Parler's first piece of conservative-on-conservative viral misinformation: a screenshot of a Fox News chyron alleging that George Soros was actually the owner of Parler. "Friends," Bongino wrote on Twitter (!), "This is a photoshopped image. THIS IS NOT REAL. There are people who are desperate to take down Parler who are spreading BS hoping you'll buy it. I OWN PARLER. This is the 4th or 5th time I've had to fight back against this stuff."
Sorry, Dan. It won't be the last.
But, but!!! (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You are either being sarcastic or are very confused.
Re: (Score:2)
Dave Barnes - Darn I wish I had 5 breweries within 6 blocks of my house! Most informative sig I've seen lately.
Re:But, but!!! (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not sure how you define "worse" but if you want comparisons between news outlets undertaken with some rigor, you might find this site interesting. [adfontesmedia.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This company is learning quickly that "I'm going to make the free speech a pillar of my platform" can't be the only pillar it has.
In an ideal situation, the censorship would run on the client-end of the communication pipe. eg "don't show me anything about trump" would just hide everything said by trump, featuring trump, and even coded about trump. The latter is the problem as people who don't like him have 100's of euphemisms for him, lot of them vulgar. Likewise, you'd probably want to auto-filter posts t
Re:But, but!!! (Score:5, Funny)
a screenshot of a Fox News chyron alleging that George Soros was actually the owner of Parler.
Oh that is inspired! Exactly what the right normally does to everyone else, and in particular using their favourite bogeyman Soros for the troll is genius. It's gonna take me awhile to get the grin off my face...
Re: (Score:3)
They have strict controls but the summary they feed to search engines literally denies it, saying
So while this isn't new, it's worth saying again. Parler lies in your face. They don't want open discussion; they want a safe space for conservatives.
Re: (Score:2)
the trolling that includes scatology and expletives
First they came for my scatology, and I said nothing...
The more things change (Score:3, Insightful)
the more they stay the same.
Re:The more things change (Score:5, Insightful)
No one is going to provide you with a platform for free where you can be arbitrarily shitty. Why would they? There's literally no incentive for them to do so, market wise, ethically, or any other way.
Re:The more things change (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure there's an incentive.
A nation-state that wants to fan the flames of hate in the U.S. would find this an extremely cheap way to do it.
Pretty sure we can name three countries off the top of our heads that would pay 100 times the cost of the website to keep it up and running indefinitely.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It would be counter productive, all the asshats in one place nicely quarantined where the damage they can do is limited.
The reason the Russians want to be on Facebook, the reason the freeze peach warriors want to be on Twitter, is that's where the action is and that's where they can reach people.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not mutually exclusive, having one does not preclude the other. Propagandists what to reach and control everyone, including the devoted.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and we've just gone over 4 years with literally that.
Re: (Score:2)
"Social media|" sites have such a huge potential upside some investors are willing to buy into them even with a low chance of explosive growth leading to a massive IPO.
Re: (Score:3)
That explains why Fox News is successful, right?
Re:The more things change (Score:5, Insightful)
That explains why Fox News is successful, right?
The reason the Fox tabloid is successful is people would rather be entertained than informed.
Re: (Score:3)
The same reason the other national media outlets have joined in and become tabloids as well.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
It's as bad as the bias that says that people from the coasts are somehow smarter. You couldn't convince me of that. I see less idiocy in Appalachia than I used to see in NYC daily.
I couldn't find article supporting your claim that there's a cognitive bias that people on the coast are smarter. I did however find this Popular Science article [popsci.com] that makes a similar but not equivalent claim that smarter people tend to move to cities, and subsequently out to the suburbs. I think the sample size in the study may be too small to draw truly accurate conclusions, but there is a pretty common sense corollary hidden in there - well-educated people tend to go where the high-paying jobs are, which
Re: The more things change (Score:5, Funny)
I love it. BASES: Bullshit Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Stupidity. The coherent counterpart to Faux News, tailored to the emotional needs of disaffected Trumpers.
Off to the patent office...
More like (Score:2)
The industrial cutting laser to Fox News' flashlight. Coherent, focused, and potentially far far more destructive.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
4chan does (Score:2)
/pol is the last bastion of free speech
Who the f*** is Bongino, John Matze is the CEO (Score:2, Informative)
it aint hard to use the frelling internet these days. This is news for nerds?
Re: (Score:3)
Boingo didn't say he was the CEO, and he isn't. Rather, he owns Parler, at least a majority share of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Bongino, not Boingo. I apologize to both. :-(
Re: (Score:2)
Rather, he owns Parler, at least a majority share of it.
I don't believe Bongino has said he owns a majority share of Parler. AFAICT, he said he owns a "stake". Do you have a source that says it's a majority stake?
Re: John Matze is the CEO (Score:2)
Nope.
John Matze, Jr is the CEO of Parler.
John Matze (the father) is https://www.linkedin.com/in/jo... [linkedin.com]
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:When you accept everyone, you get the worst. (Score:5, Interesting)
Back in the day I saw mailing lists and Usenet groups, and later. Some of the early web forums, essentially destroyed because trolls and flamers were allowed to get out of hand, either because moderators were weak, or they believed that free expression was paramount over at least some modicum of decent and reasonable behavior. Sooner or later any online posting service is going to have to reign things in or watch more reasonable contributors just leave. And if your model includes advertising revenues then you risk advertisers walking away.
Now maybe Parler is a Russian front. In which case it's not interested in money or fair play. But at that point it's going to have a pretty limited audience. The fact that it is pushing back against at least some trolling suggests it doesn't want to get so toxic all it becomes a qanon echo chamber.
Re:When you accept everyone, you get the worst. (Score:4, Interesting)
to provide a neutral platform for free speech as our founders intended,” and that “the ever increasing tyranny and hubris of our tech overlords lead the fight against data mining” and online free speech.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/... [theverge.com]
Yes, it is funny that they complain about data mining
I think it is safe to say that they don't expect to make money. But they want a safe space for conservatives to exchange bad ideas and made up crap without liberals shouting them down. I think it is destined to become either a ghosttown or a hellscape, and the absolute worst of the Right will eventually claim that Parler sold out and is no different from Twitter.
But they're making other parts of the internet better, so I wish them luck.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: When you accept everyone, you get the worst. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
When you create something where everyone is welcomed, the rational people stay away because they will get drowned out and the irrational people will come because they know they can say whatever crazy shit they want.
FTFY
Too much inclusivity is bad, mmmkay! (Score:2)
Facebook is a perfect example of this. Its original focus required you to have a minim
Re: (Score:2)
It's not "the vulnerable" it's everyone who isn't a sucker for punishment.
Given the choice between being yelled at by aggressive shitposting n@zis and not, most people naturally choose the latter.
Re: (Score:2)
But Facebook and Twitter want advertising revenue. If the place becomes too toxic, whether the toxicity is stated obscenely or politely, the advertisers pullout. I cannot perceive a business model for Parler, so clearly it's not a venture meant for money making, but Facebook and Twitter, and YouTube as well, are. They're obligation is to their shareholders, not to any ivory tower version of free expression. They are also facing the likelihood of several nations putting them under a regulatory framework. I d
Re:When you accept everyone, you get the worst. (Score:5, Insightful)
they simply kick you off the platform
Kicking you off the platform is censorship. They are preventing you from voicing your opinion.
You can't have it both ways. On one hand you claim FB et al are "censoring" those on the right by kicking them off the platform or marking their ramblings as fake, but now you're claiming that being kicked off a platform is not censorship.
Kindly make up your mind.
Re: (Score:2)
Kicking one off a platform for disrespectful, antagonizing, domineering, bullying behavior is not censorship.
Decorum and human respect, even with those we deeply disagree with, is the basis for civilized society. Many years ago, "debate" mean exactly that.
99% of the social media and "news" I read has traded civility for "free expression" where I have no desire to spend time even with people who's philosophical, political, or practical opinions I may even agree with.
Good for Parler, until it also becomes an
Re: (Score:2)
Kicking one off a platform for disrespectful, antagonizing, domineering, bullying behavior is not censorship.
It is.
Censorship is bad and should be used sparingly. If someone insists on being silly then few other options remain but be honest about what you're doing. You're closing down someone's speech because you don't like what they're saying.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not censorship if it's not done by the goverment
Re: (Score:3)
It's not censorship if it's not done by the government
It absolutely is censorship if it's not being done by the government. It is, however, legal censorship when not being done by the government.
Which is how it should be. If I don't like what you have to say, I shouldn't be able to stop you from speaking your mind. However, that doesn't mean I have to give you access to a platform.
Re: (Score:2)
Parler does not censor though. They simply kick you off the platform if you are a shithead but otherwise you're free to engage in civil discussion.
"It's not censorship if you're a shithead".
I mean I'm cool with that because I don't accept Parler has an obligation to provide a platform to shitheads, but neither does twitter. And the thing about platforms is they get to decide what qualifies as "shitheaddery".
Re: (Score:2)
Stating an opinion is not being a shithead.
Your opinions aren't magical things that shield you from criticism. If you have really shit opinions then you're a shithead, especially if you don't keep them to yourself.
If you feel offended by someone having an opposing opinion, then that problem is on you.
If someone's "opposing opinion" is that I should be killed then yeah the problem is with that shithead, not me.
Re: (Score:2)
*PARLER'S* definition of civil
Whose definition of 'civil' would the post you quoted not contravene?
Trolling rolls both ways (Score:5, Interesting)
I wish that the Republicans in congress had realized this basic psychological fact 3 years ago and put a leash on their president. Now there's a guy who OBVIOUSLY needed some external constraint to keep him in line. Not a single shred of internal self-control in that brain. The conservative attitude of "we love macho male executives with unlimited power" prevented them from applying any pressure whatsoever. It's ironic - if senate Republicans had leaned on him hard enough to force him to moderate his mouth just a tiny bit, they might still have the white house. Trump came very close to winning. If he had pissed off SLIGHTLY fewer people, he'd probably have a second term.
Re: (Score:2)
I won't deny there are left-wing and right-wing trolls, but generally the left are sloppy and disorganized about it, whereas the right conduct master-classes in it. [motherjones.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a pretty epic troll [nytimes.com].
That is an op-ed, not a troll. It makes some insightful points abut the misuse of history in the service of political gain. And, given its publication date of June 4, 2016, one might say it was even prescient. But just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's a troll.
Re: (Score:3)
That is an op-ed, not a troll.
These two are not mutually exclusive. For some reason, you seem to think they are, I don't know why.
No, I don't think they are mutually exclusive. I simply think that the piece you linked is an op-ed, and not a troll. However, I can understand you drawing your conclusion from my wording, so I apologize for not being clearer.
The piece struck me as a good-faith attempt by the writer to inform the reader of a tenable opinion. It did not strike me as a disingenuous hit-piece with distortions or fabrications intended to incite anger and disagreements. So no, I don't think it's a troll, even though I might not
Re: (Score:2)
The op-ed is trying to draw a parallel between Trump and Hitler. That is a troll, unless you think Trump is like Hitler, in which case you are partisan.
No, it is not.
I don't think Trump is Hitler, nor does the writer of the op-ed. Rather, the writer laments that the comparison is even part of public discourse, while at the same time, points out why such a comparison was happening at the time he wrote it.
And I still assert that it is not a troll-piece.
Re: (Score:2)
It’s true that Donald Trump is not Hitler. But the fact that the comparison has any traction at all....and hints at how dark the future might get.
The author of the op-ed should be trolling, otherwise he is just wrong:
that it is a recognizable part of our new political dialogue
Calling presidential candidates "Hitler" is not new, it's a venerated tradition for Americans.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Trolling rolls both ways (Score:4, Insightful)
"There are left-wing trolls, and there are right-wing trolls."
False equivalency. Also, there are non-political trolls. It is well known that a primary goal of the right wing is to "own the libs", there is no opposing motivation.
"Left, right, whatever. "
There goes the false equivalency again. We've seen the monsters, they aren't "left, right, whatever".
Re:Trolling rolls both ways (Score:5, Insightful)
I live in a purple state. I know this for a fact. What feels reasonable to one side sounds like trolling to the other. The professional trolls know no politics. They troll on whatever wedge issue they think will make the most disruption. For the past few years, yeah, they've been hammering at gullible right-wingers who somehow think that Trump stood up for the little man mmmmrrffff hahhahhhahhhah omg I can't say that without laughing. But, in any case, wait a year or two and it could change.
I'm really worried that it's going to take some kind of major war or catastrophe to shock us back to being reasonable. I really hope it doesn't come to that but it feels like huge chunks of society are feeling like a fight.
Re:Trolling rolls both ways (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a false equivalence. Racist vs Socialist are not equally bad.
You hate me because of my race. I hate you because you hate me and my race. These attitudes are not equally bad.
Re: (Score:2)
There are left-wing trolls, and there are right-wing trolls.
Both need each other to justify their own extremism, unreasonableness, and even violence. Sort like a perverted Ying/Yang.
Re: (Score:3)
There are left-wing trolls, and there are right-wing trolls.
The true troll knows no political affiliation. The art of trolling is to get a rise out of people. A good troll, for example would select a left wing position to annoy the righties, but get it really wrong so it annoys the lefties too. It's a shame that just being a dick now counts as trolling.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I do hate that "trolling" is a lost art. Back in the day there used to be really, really good trolls. Now if you are an excellent troll nobody notices, because there's always some far shittier posts before and after yours to get worked up about and focus on. A good troll reads as authentic upon a quick skim, and that doesn't require an angry reply.
Re:Trolling rolls both ways (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, there's a very strong streak of The-Ends-Justify-The-Means mentality going on. There are some people I feel willing to remove democracy as long as they can ban abortion or remove all constraints on gun ownership of any type. Just like there are some on the far left willing to remove democracy as long as they can get socialism. And a lot of people who just want a very strong authoritarian leader as long as that leader is on their side, even if it means tearing down a balance of power between courts/legislature/executive.
American it turns out, was not a unique country. We have plenty of citizens just like the people who keep voting for Putin, because a strong leader is all they want. A strong leader is easy to understand, no complexities of politics, no deal making, no compromising, no head scratching when you look at a ballot. It's simpler. Sure they oppress people but they only oppress the other half of the country.
Re:Trolling rolls both ways (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
For every scamdemic and pizza gate troll working to piss of lefties, there's someone going after the righties.
And yet you can name two well known right-wing trolls, but can't seem to name a single left-wing troll that anyone knows about.
Yaz
Surprise! (Score:2)
Well, that's not a surprise. Every centrally controlled system will have a restrictive governance. It's probably necessary...at least I haven't been able to think of any way around it, and I don't like centralization of power. Which creed you follow merely determines which out groups you select to penalize.
The benefit of things like Diaspora https://diasporafoundation.org... [diasporafoundation.org] is the lack of centralized control, but this also tends to eliminate the benefits of network interaction. It's not a surprise that
It's also owned and run by the Mercers (Score:3)
Always, always, always follow the money.
Re: (Score:2)
e.g. a pair of billionaires.
Oh, you mean some of those elites the Fox tabloid keeps talking about. Funny how these folks are swarming to a place run by the people they're supposed to hate.
It's almost as if they're too uneducated to realize they've been duped.
Honestly I didn't know it as backed by the Mercers (Score:2)
How utterly AWFUL (Score:2)
Censorship knows no bounds (Score:2)
Now it's time the Right got some of my flak.
Parler: How could you? Why do this? You had the opportunity to learn from EVERY OTHER platform, and distinguish yourself from them in a very crucial way (that LOTS of people want), and yet you go and do they same they do - censor on a whim. You champion free speech on your ho
Re:Censorship knows no bounds (Score:4, Insightful)
Head over to voat.co to see what social media turns into without moderation or censorship.
Re: (Score:3)
The reason Voat is the way it is because Reddit banned dozens of such far right communities and Voat just happened to be a Reddit-like site in feel, and the ONLY place allowing free speech, so of course they all went there. However, that phenomenon will happen less and less as more social media sites stand up for free speech instead of leaving the burden to a SINGLE site.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet Slashdot's okay?
Slashdot has both a kind-of-working moderation system and some nominally benevolent oversight, which puts it doubly ahead of most sites but is still kind of sad.
The reason Voat is the way it is because Reddit banned dozens of such far right communities and Voat
...didn't.
Re: (Score:2)
didn't
Point being is if another free speech Reddit clone cropped up, you'd have a much more balanced range of views across the full spectrum, just like Reddit would have been, if they didn't ban any subs there: Far left to Left to Center to Right to far right.
Voat unfortunately needed to be a 'sacrifice' in that sense. The site was a lot better (and more popular) before Reddit kicked off the far right communities where they evacuated to Voat.
Re: (Score:2)
They did a bait and switch didn't they.
Obviously because they have market dominance, it's going to take time for the giants to be swiped from their perch. But it's happening, slowly. Ruqqus, Voat, (maybe) Gab, Saidit and others are gradually springing up and offer greater degrees of free speech. Just don't expect it to happen overnight.
Decentralized or GTFO. (Score:2)
If there is an overlord, he's gonna abuse it.
If he doesn't, powerful people will make him do it.
It must be a *protocol*. Not a piece of software. That's only coming with it to get things started.
And it must be super-appealing to luddites and Joe Sixpacks too. And not some weird fringe thing that looks like it too because its designers have no confidence nor marketing skills. Otherwise you're vasting time and resources.
Sounds very familiar (Score:2)
I seem to recall posting this story [techdirt.com] which says the exact same thing. If you go to Parler and post the exact same thing the MAGA crowd was posting on Twitter, you will be removed because, you know, safe spaces and all that.
It is hilarious to see the same people who whined they were being "censored" now doing the censoring for innocuous and clearly harmless posts. The only reason the posts are being removed is because of how thin-skinned these fascists are. Can't take any criticism whatsoever.
The next time
So... Paler has a TOS... just like ever other site (Score:3)
This entire article reads like a pretty obvious hit-piece and I can't see why anyone even fall of it at this point. One of the big arguments for mass de-platforming of controversial or just conservative personalities on social media is the argument that 'they're a private company' and thus can have whatever TOS they want. From day one Parler said they wanted to be for free speech but they never said that there were no rules at all on the site.
This article reads like someone that took their ideal of journalism from their reading of Saul Alinsky 'Rules for Radicals'. Try to hold your enemies to their own standers while ridiculing them about it.
Re: (Score:2)
That's EXACTLY what conservatives were getting banned for on twitter. Then they'd claim that the ban was due to their political identify and suckers like you bought it.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you are spreading misinformation and should be banned for it;-) If you look at the list of notable Twitter suspensions on Wikipedia you will see that most of these bans are not due to threating violence, spamming, harassment, and pornography:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
A lot of the recent ones are in fact for what Twitter considers misinformation. The most prominent example being the temporary ban of the New York Post. But take a look yourself.
I don't think any social media platform will survive wi
I joined yesterday ... (Score:4, Interesting)
... and it's a mess.
It is littered with ads. Not surprising, is it? Traditional social media platforms don't allow for spam, but Parler is "free speech."
Most of the crap is porn: webcams, photos, videos ... stuff not allowed elsewhere.
Hilariously, there are accusations against members as being plants by the Biden organization and calls for members to block those.
I picked a few names at random and outed them as being lurkers and sleepers and spies. Don't know if they really were or not, but I kicked the ant pile.
The rest of the shit is boring echo chamber crap about ancient conspiracy theories, denigration of out-of-bubble persons, and information that's useless as tits on a boar.
--
Predictably, screenshots of internal bickering appear on Twitter and Facebook.
What's the point of Parler?
Very little.
Re: (Score:2)
What's the point of Parler?
Imagine how much better the internet would be if all the stupid people voluntarily walled themselves off inside their own garden.
That's the purpose of Parler.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine how much better the internet would be if all the stupid people voluntarily walled themselves off inside their own garden.
It's honestly, not as great as you make it sound. It's not like they're locked in there. So imagine a bunch of people who don't believe in the germ theory of disease, so they lock themselves up in close quarters together. You initially think, "great, they've quarantined themselves." But what actually happened is that if only a few of them were sick in the beginning, that spreads like wildfire in their little community...and they're not locked in there, so they get out and go shopping and each of them all go
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I said I joined.
You said, "I don't think ..."
You also mentioned blockchain.
Evaluate.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah? (Score:3)
"There are people who are desperate to take down Parler who are spreading BS hoping you'll buy it. I OWN PARLER. This is the 4th or 5th time I've had to fight back against this stuff."
Oh you poor downtrodden victim.
Re: (Score:2)
There is potential truth in what he's saying. Back when 8chan had gamergate forums, anyone who posted doxx was banned and anyone who even suggested harassing a named individual had their thread shitposted to death and deleted. The fate of those posts and threads of course did not reach the twitter screencaps. There was even a copypasta that made pro-pedophilia arguments which were completely off-topic and posted purely to screenshot and say "Look at these glabberhabbers defending pedos!"
Ooooh (Score:2)
Oh, so a platform built with the sole purpose of hating others is having internal problems?
ME SO SHOCKED.
Jesus Christ (Score:2)
Delete your broadcast social media (Score:2)
One thing I've noticed... (Score:2)
Americans scream from the rooftops that freedom of speech is a left-wing thing, yet every site that proclaims that they support free speech and do so in practice always turn extreme right.
8chan, Voat, and Gab to name a few.
Somewhat worrying (Score:3)
In the past did one simply ignore misbehaviour and thereby avoided giving the wrong people any attention. Today however do people more often fight, censor and ban as a response. This has given the wrong people power by politicising free speech. This is a somewhat worrying trend inside our western cultures, who in the past were mocking tyrants and dictators and things like the Chinese internet firewall, but now we are trending towards more control ourselves, mainly because we have forgotten how not to give attention to the wrong people.
Re:Dan Bongino? (Score:5, Informative)
Dan Bongino is a right wing talk show host and internet personality. He's not the CEO of Parler. TDS apparently results in a permanent cessation of brain function: any conservative is now every conservative.
This is true, Bongino is not the CEO. But he does hold a majority ownership stake in Parler, so he's not just some unconnected conservative as you seem to be implying.
Re: (Score:2)
This is true, Bongino is not the CEO. But he does hold a majority ownership stake in Parler
Citation? There's another guy around here claiming Parler is owned by the Mercers. Bongino says he has an "ownership stake", but that doesn't necessarily mean a majority stake. As near as I can tell, it's unclear who owns/controls Parler.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want a right-leanimg free speech "utopia." I wouldn't mind a place where people don't get their posts removed for saying stupid or inflammatory stuff regardless of political slant, though. I prefer to have it in the open so I can call out the dumb stuff.
What you want is Voat. But you'll be upsent when you go there and find it turned into a cesspool of shit because for every one person you call out for being dumb there's 100 trolls posting yet more shit. Legit just leave because who wants to surround themselves with that shit.
True free speech platforms wither and die for predictable reasons. Free speech does not imply people need to sit around and read it so they typically don't.
Re: Unaffiliated (Score:3)
That is rich. You think yours posts are poignant. Thank you for adding another poignant gem to the collection.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
A safe space for conservatives who feel big social media is censoring their misinformation.
Re: (Score:3)
If liberals are libtards... what does that make a Republican?
Re: (Score:2)
In any case, I am observing 10s of K per channel per day move from Twitter to Telegram at present. The moment Telegram allowed discussion on channels, that was a given. Same as above - all the non-compliant individuals will leave Twitter (except the ones paid to troll) and move to Telegram.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe Parler is the better alternative to Facebook et al.
Most Facebook users are on there to post the menial details of their daily lives and pictures of their family/pets. It wasn't intended to be a political battleground for political extremists, and booting off folks who attempt to use it as such is a feature, not a bug.