If a site did nothing but post links to copyrighted/ pirated songs, it would get banned. We know this because we've seen it happen over and over.
If a site posted links to houses where people were on vacation and discussed best ways to break into them. It would get banned. Nobody would complain.
Why is it that a site which is essentially built to allow people to discuss violent crimes against people is supposed to be tolerated? We should tolerate it because it's discussing violent crimes against politicians? I don't even think it's limited to that regardless.
Parler was created so people could discuss things which were banned on other sites for being too violent and had too much hate speech. It's unofficial charter is based on supporting criminal activities.
I don't understand why people are acting like this is free speech when so many similar crime-based sites are not tolerated.
>Parler was created so people could discuss things which were banned on other sites for being too violent and had too much hate speech. It's unofficial charter is based on supporting criminal activities.
You think Parler has a page that says they know a big percentage of their content will be hate speech and plotting violence. Like an official unofficial policy page?
Then maybe you should stop spreading unsubstantiated claims if you have nothing to back them up with. You could have, for example, taken a screenshot of the front page of Parler when it was up, to display that the majority of the popular topics were criminal in intent (personally I have a hard time believing that that would've been the case).
Parler knew exactly what their platform was for. They don't delete this shit because it's their competitive advantage. If they don't post threats and violent plots, there is no reason for them to exist.
Their executive team knows this and leaves it up for exactly that reason.
> Unsubstantiated? Maybe you should open your eyes.
I literally just asked you for evidence and you literally refused to give any. Then I asked you to stop spreading unsubstantiated claims. Somehow you are surprised at that reaction?
I could easily find similar posts on Facebook and Twitter. The questions are: how prevalent is this & did Parler really not delete this stuff?
> They don't delete this shit because it's their competitive advantage.
Parler claims to have deleted every single post reported by Amazon. You claim that they didn't delete any of them. Do you have proof? It would be pretty weird for Parler to flat out lie on this point, so unless I see some evidence I'm going to assume Parler is (in this particular instance) telling the truth and you are lying.
> If they don't post threats and violent plots, there is no reason for them to exist.
You fail to imagine any other reason for Parler to exist other than for "threats and violent plots"? That's so outlandish I don't think you believe it yourself.
If a site posted links to houses where people were on vacation and discussed best ways to break into them. It would get banned. Nobody would complain.
Why is it that a site which is essentially built to allow people to discuss violent crimes against people is supposed to be tolerated? We should tolerate it because it's discussing violent crimes against politicians? I don't even think it's limited to that regardless.
Parler was created so people could discuss things which were banned on other sites for being too violent and had too much hate speech. It's unofficial charter is based on supporting criminal activities.
I don't understand why people are acting like this is free speech when so many similar crime-based sites are not tolerated.