Parler Apparently Temporarily Blocked Its Own Co-Founder and Former CEO (buzzfeednews.com) 83
"Parler, the social media site popular among conservatives, appeared to have banned its cofounder and former CEO on Friday," reports BuzzFeed News, "before restoring his access later in the day."
An anonymous Slashdot reader shares their report: John Matze, whom Parler's management fired earlier this month, told BuzzFeed News that he believed he had been banned after making several posts and comments on the platform earlier this week. Screenshots that Matze shared on a Telegram channel showed that his account had been made "private" on Friday after he'd made a post asking his 722,000 Parler followers what they thought the "fair market value" of the company was. Earlier this week, he had made a post on Parler asking followers to join him on Telegram, a popular messaging app. When BuzzFeed News attempted to communicate with the handle, it received a message that the account had been "blocked."
"I know it's a ban because I know how the architecture works," Matze told BuzzFeed News over text. "I can't log in anymore."
After BuzzFeed News contacted a Parler spokesperson about the situation, the social network unblocked the account, according to Matze, who provided a screenshot. The spokesperson did not provide any comment.
An anonymous Slashdot reader shares their report: John Matze, whom Parler's management fired earlier this month, told BuzzFeed News that he believed he had been banned after making several posts and comments on the platform earlier this week. Screenshots that Matze shared on a Telegram channel showed that his account had been made "private" on Friday after he'd made a post asking his 722,000 Parler followers what they thought the "fair market value" of the company was. Earlier this week, he had made a post on Parler asking followers to join him on Telegram, a popular messaging app. When BuzzFeed News attempted to communicate with the handle, it received a message that the account had been "blocked."
"I know it's a ban because I know how the architecture works," Matze told BuzzFeed News over text. "I can't log in anymore."
After BuzzFeed News contacted a Parler spokesperson about the situation, the social network unblocked the account, according to Matze, who provided a screenshot. The spokesperson did not provide any comment.
To be fair... (Score:5, Insightful)
He was probably saying things that the free-speech platform owners didn't like.
Re: To be fair... (Score:4, Insightful)
I thought the whole point was that it wasn't free speech anymore because he's now "former"...
Re: To be fair [to Mike Pence] (Score:2)
I'm thinking that Mike Pence wouldn't feel welcome on Parler. Or maybe the Secret Service would advise him against it?
Remember back when the former VP was free to speechify at CPAC?
Mike's getting lots of advice these days.
Re: (Score:3)
I thought the whole point was that it wasn't free speech anymore because he's now "former"...
Only if we consider "free speech" to be a far right wing echo chamber where banning anything that you don't like is a right.
Re: (Score:1)
Indeed. Milo was just banned for threatening to dox people too. Free speech is dead, I don't think there are any platforms he hasn't been booted off now.
Re:To be fair... (Score:5, Insightful)
Free speech is alive and well. But just like the free market it demands regulation in order to work well. We have never had unfettered speech in the US, ever. You can't say what you like in someone else's home (heck, you can't even go into someone else's home without permission). You can't shout fire in a crowded building when there's no fire. You can't send bomb threats. You can't lie while under oath in court. And so forth.
Free speech does not mean everyone gets to say whatever they want whereever they want and whenever they want. If you believe that, then you do not really understand what free speech and it's time to read your constitution for a second time (or first).
Re: (Score:2)
And why would reading the constitution help? I am assuming that you are talking about the USA's constitution, in this case, which says very little about free speech and doesn't give any definitions at all.
The full text of the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grieva
Re:To be fair... (Score:5, Insightful)
The full text of the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
That is "it".
And isn't it amusing that the same people who believe that if they aren't allowed to plan the overthrow of a Republic, they are being censored, at the same time believe that the Press must be censored, because it reports things that they don't like.
It is not about free speech in any form. It's about suppression of anything that doesn't conform to a weird crypto conservative conspiracy worldview. That they call if free speech, then ban opposing opinions is just something they've learned, which is accuse your enemy of what you are doing already.
Anyhow, I like that it is up again, because gathering all the nuts in one place is a great way to keep track of them.
Re: (Score:3)
Also some demand that the first amendment demands that we be allowed to be crowded into a church, while at the same time mosques should never be allowed. There's a rationale here being applied by some: rights apply to us and not to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Also some demand that the first amendment demands that we be allowed to be crowded into a church, while at the same time mosques should never be allowed. There's a rationale here being applied by some: rights apply to us and not to them.
Exactly. Orwell's "Animal Farm" was supposed to be a warning, not a how to manual.
Re: (Score:2)
You're side-stepping the issue by quibbling about a single document, when in fact there's a wide body of Constitutional law that supports his assertions that "rights" can, will be, and in fact must be regulated.
Re: (Score:2)
I was being sarcastic.
I actually don't know what Milo Yiannopoulos' deal is. Maybe he is just trying to get banned from anything at this stage, because being a victim of cancel culture is pretty much all he has left going for him.
Parler's new management seems to be trying to clean up a bit. I suppose they have to.
Re:To be fair... (Score:4, Informative)
There's a whole lot of cancelling going on by the right wing right now against their own who aren't ideologically pure enough. Hypocrisy is a live and well.
Re: (Score:2)
it's time to read your constitution for a second time (or first).
Spoiler:
Constitution says, no law. No exceptions are specified. Without that, none are allowed.
Re: (Score:2)
The law decides what the government can nail you for. Not what another person can. People get in actual legal trouble backed by laws for things they say all the time.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Yes, I know the state regularly violates the amendment in their statutes and courthouses without consequence, but the constitution says, no law. They should correct that first before just saying you can't speak this or that. They could have been more slippery in the beginning with something like *no unreasonable or cruel and unusual law", then you can write in any restrictions you want without violating anything but the person's natural right to speak. But, no biggie, everybody has decided that only neo(mr.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I know the state regularly violates the amendment in their statutes and courthouses without consequence
Citation required. The government coming after you for speech is not the same thing as protecting people from each other. Maybe you should understand what the constitution is and does before you attempt to make an analysis of only 2 words while ignoring the other 7589.
Re: (Score:1)
Then read the 14th
Re: (Score:3)
You can't shout fire in a crowded building when there's no fire.
And that's where you're wrong. You will probably say something about that you were quoting a Supreme Court judge, without realising that the judge in question was using an analogy and not determining legal precedent (ruling: Schenck v. United 1919), but even if it did it's completely irrelevant because the ruling was overturned by the Supreme Court again in Brandenburg v. Ohio 1969.
So yes, you can shout fire in a crowded building. The building owner may not like it and kick you out, but you won't get in leg
Re: (Score:2)
Free speech is live and well - Free Speech is a right to peaceable expression and freedom to express one's beliefs and ideas without impediment or punishment from the government and officials, it does Not mean complete unmoderated anarchy. Free Speech does not include a right to use speech in the pursuit or furtherance of criminal act without consequences, such as doxxing an individual, threatening, or harassing a person, such actions go way beyond expression of one's own ideas or beliefs and well into
Re: (Score:2)
He was probably saying things that the free-speech platform owners didn't like.
Not the first time the "free speech" site has banned people [techdirt.com] for saying things the owners didn't like [independent.co.uk].
The really funny part, and showing Parler is no different than any other such site, is they banned Yiannopoulos [thegatewaypundit.com] for violating their rules [independent.co.uk], or rather, the rules of their hosting provider. But after he whined, and asked that he be exempt from all regulations, reinstated him.
So yeah, Parler is no different than Twitter or Facebook. They even have the same hypocrisy over deciding who is allowed to voice their
So much for supporting free speech.. Screw Parler (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Bitten by his own monster. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's ironic that the person who touts a network of free speech is also prevented from speaking on that very platform. The reality is that nothing about Parler promotes free speech, they only allow politically advantageous speech. It's not an exaggeration either because if you do not follow their mantra then they will ban you. Not for threats of violence or hate speech but for not being "one of them".
Parler is the very thing they decry.
Re:Bitten by his own monster. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Parler was built from the ground up to be a safe space for right wing extremists who were kicked off Twitter & Facebook.
In the most basic sense, they don't need a "safe space" they need an available space -- they were safe on Twitter and Facebook, they just couldn't spout on about their hate and desire for violence, etc... as that violated the T&S. The "safe space" they want is merely one free from the consequences of their speech and, if they need that, they need to review their speech, not the platform used.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Bitten by his own monster. (Score:1)
Candace Owens is black, by your own definition she cannot be racist or bigoted. You, for saying that should now grovel and apologize.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
https://medium.com/perceive-mo... [medium.com]
And I quote: The issue with calling a Black person racist is that Black people, by definition, cannot be racist.
Re: (Score:2)
He kicked people he disagreed with off Parler, back when he was in charge.
I know a place (Score:2)
Re: I know a place (Score:2)
Babylon, Medieval Europe, 20th century Eastern Europe...
There are some others.
Re: (Score:2)
Hell.
Re: (Score:2)
Where is a guy supposed to go now to say Kill the Jews and not get taken down?
Slashdot. . .
Re: Geez (Score:1)
For anti-semitism you have to be a Democrat on Twitter. See: Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Alexandria Cortez, Linda Sarsour
Re:A mere technical glitch and section 230 (Score:5, Insightful)
The real world doesn't work like you think it does.
McD's absolutely can kick somebody out for shit-talking their food. They usually don't bother, but if somebody starts doing it loudly enough that it bothers the other customers, the shit-talker is getting bounced. And they DO bounce people all the time. Some McD's even have security guards to bounce people who are being too obnoxious.
Show up at McD's with a big swastika poster and start talking about how you want to start a race war and see how long it is before you get booted and banned, with trespassing charges coming your way if you ever go back. They're not gonna care if you want to buy a burger, and they're probably gonna have cops escort you off the property.
You want to sue them for bouncing you? Go right ahead, but you WILL lose in court.
Neither Twitter nor McD's can bounce you because of your race or gender. But either one can bounce you because you're being an asshat.
Re: (Score:2)
McDonald's is private property. You have no right to be there. They can ask you to leave at any time for any reason and it's perfectly legal. You are correct you can file suit against anyone but it would be dismissed immediately.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't even read your own links you dumb motherfucker.
Offering merchandise for sale implies an invitation to enter, but the store owner is entitled to ban someone from coming in. The person could be a suspected shoplifter or a troublemaker, or he can be banned for any reason, as long as it is not based on bias against a federally protected class of people.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not even remotely strawmanning. Twitter regularly deals with blatant white supremacist postings, and McD's (far less frequently) has dealt with the same issue.
Section 230 doesn't prevent suits from being filed. It merely provides a shield from liability for third-party posts on a website that allows said posts when a provider removes some of the worst garbage. If it weren't for 230, virtually all user comments would disappear from the internet entirely, because virtually no corporation would be willi
Re: (Score:2)
Or bounce you for any reason they so damn well please including no reason at all.
It's private property.
Re: (Score:2)
The real world doesn't work like you think it does.
McD's absolutely can kick somebody out for shit-talking their food. They usually don't bother, but if somebody starts doing it loudly enough that it bothers the other customers, the shit-talker is getting bounced. And they DO bounce people all the time. Some McD's even have security guards to bounce people who are being too obnoxious.
Speaking of the real world, what the fuck, is this? Are you serious with this bullshit? I usually don't demand citations, but in this case, I certainly will.
Let me know exactly which McEateries, have fucking bouncers. And thank you for reminding me why I should never eat Mc"Food" again.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sorry, I don't have a list.
And I'm not exactly a fan of their food either.
I've seen them have security guards in locations near major universities.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, I don't have a list.
And I'm not exactly a fan of their food either.
I've seen them have security guards in locations near major universities.
I understand. Sadly, this tends to say a lot more about "higher" education, than McFood.
Re: (Score:2)
only as far as they adhere to the first amendment
Stop posting drunk. The first amendment places no restrictions on anyone other than the government of the united states.
"But we're on the interwebs!" doesn't make them different than a brick n mortar business kicking out otherwise harmless people talking about things the owners don't like. If this guy was kicked out of McDonald's for talking at his table about how McDonald's sucks and burger king is better they'd find themselves in court if he bothered.
I'm pleased though you show a very consistent lack of legal knowledge. You can get kicked out of McDonalds for absolutely no reason what so ever. McDonalds may find itself in court. Briefly. And the decision would uphold McDonald's right to you out, and you'll be hopefully feeling quite stupid for paying money to a lawyer to attempt to bring a frivolous lawsuit.
You're right, the interwebs
Parler hypocrisy is just following the trend (Score:5, Insightful)
The one thing Trump accomplished is the normalization of hypocrisy (and lying) in the political sphere. Sure hypocrisy (and lying) always existed and was found in roughly equal proportions on the left and the right but it was always considered unethical and something to avoid or even apologize for.
Trump elevated hypocrisy as normal, acceptable, and expected. There are websites collecting hundreds of Trump tweets attacking Obama or others for actions he did in double time and he did so openly and unapologetically. Look at the sneer on Trump's or his children's faces as they attack the "liberal cancel culture" while they encouraging boycotts and censuring of any Senator that wasn't 100% Trump loyal. And this downward ethical trend is embraced and supported by the religious white Evangelicals, the self-described moral torchbearers of society.
Re: Parler hypocrisy is just following the trend (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Point taken...
Re: Parler hypocrisy is just following the trend (Score:1)
Trump was just loud about it and the media amplified it. Speaking of hypocrisy: Biden has signed more EOs than Obama and Trump combined in his first month. Biden just keeps everything quiet while opening the âoekids in cagesâ facilities, his admin admitted not having any clue to handle COVID or distribute the vaccine, sets goals that have already been met by Trumps admin etc.
Maybe a case of ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Its not unusual for companies to prohibit public statements ....
Are statements by the public, on a platform provided by the company, the same as public statements by the company regarding their platform?
I guess his history with the company, and his probable holding of their stock, would make the situation rather more complex than the above question would suggest though. Perhaps someone unaffiliated with the company, a 'genuine' member of the public, could pose the same question on Parler, to see if they get the same response.
Re: (Score:2)
Are statements by the public, on a platform provided by the company
Their filter might just catch key words about company share prices by key personnel and block the account automatically. Pending review by humans and reactivation.
Free Speech (Score:3)
free as in beer (Score:3)
Free as in beer, not as in speech. Figures.
"You know, a free press is not freedom for the thought you love, but rather for the thought you hate the most. People need to tolerate the Larry Flynts of the world so they can be free." --Larry Flynt
No doubt they'll get him for good next time (Score:1)
A cynic might note that this, along with Lou Dobbs' sudden trip to the chopping block, are a couple of the best examples of "cancel culture" we're likely to find.
The irony is so thick you could cut it with a chainsaw.
Re: (Score:2)
A cynic might note that this, along with Lou Dobbs' sudden trip to the chopping block, are a couple of the best examples of "cancel culture" we're likely to find.
The irony is so thick you could cut it with a chainsaw.
Was Your hero Trump engaging in cancel culture when he fired anyone who didn't agree with him?
That must be different though. That's making America great again, draining the swamp, and no more bullshit, amirite?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
My friend, I think you misread my comment. My point is that conservatives scream hysterically about "liberal cancel culture" any time one of their heroes gets shut down for pissing all over the terms of use required by organizations like Twitter, Facebook or even media-sensitive corporations like Disney. But when right wing media organizations such as Fox News, Parler, etc, behave in exactly the same way...crickets.
Re: (Score:1)
I thought Trump trying to cancel the vote counting & election results were pretty good examples of cancel culture.
Centralization is the problem (Score:2, Insightful)
Humans throughout history have had a bad relationship with truth and free-expression (especially if it ever interfered with those in power).
No matter how hard you try to enforce rules protecting all people, centralized systems always seem to converge and power corrupts absolutely.
The way to protect the individual is through decentralized systems. Don't depend on good leaders.
The right sure does love it's (Score:1)
Free advertising! (Score:2)
Don't you just love it when left-wing clickbait sites give us every juicy detail about the latest alt-right-natsoc-filled-trump-supporting social media site while complaining about how its membership is rapidly growing?
The sound of silence (Score:2)
When you don't tow the bullshit narrative.. (Score:2)
... you get disabled, taken over, and reformed.
Because free speech isn't good under any circumstance - right? Only bad people want free speech. If we're not free no-one will hate us for it. That'll make us safer.