Parler partially reappears with support from Russian technology firm | Hacker News Reader

Parler partially reappears with support from Russian technology firm

reuters.com

83 pointssethgoodluck100 comments

FWIW we don't know where it's hosted now, that's the point of DDoS-Guard, and the Reuters article makes no claim the site is 'hosted by Russia.'

Waiting for the first e-mail or API call out of the service to reveal it's location :)

This reminds me of the recent attempt to blame TeamCity for the Solarwinds hack, because TeamCity’s CEO is Russian [0]. A disturbing trend in journalism, IMO.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/us/p...

Someone changed this HN post title now to "Parler partially reappears with support from Russian technology firm" which is both true and what the Reuters headline originally was.

https://twitter.com/davetroy/status/1327257161739677697

looks like there are some legit questions on Parler and its origins.

What will happen if anti-Putin posts show up on Parler? Will the Parler CEO get poisoned or the site simply goes offline. Any bets?

The words that come from the Parler CEO are very different to his actions.

It's been rumoured (with very good sources) that he happily complied with FBI requests to turn over data. So it wouldn't surprise me if was more than happy to comply with whatever Putin wanted so long as it was kept quiet.

Nothing will happen as long as Parler isn't widely used in Russia. (I'm going on the assumption they're even actually hosted there.)

The Russian M.O. seems to be to maximize chaos. I don't think they care about the details very much, and I doubt Putin cares one bit what random net-dwellers outside Russia say about him. He cares about:

-Control in Russia

-Making life difficult for opposing states.

Sadly that Twitter thread looks more like the usual conspiracy theory, trying to link multiple "but this looks weird" facts without actual knowledge. The same kind of things used by the opposing side to come up with any of their latest "George Soros controls the world" or other odd theories. A slight double standard in that sense.

I think there's a lot more substance to that thread, that includes things like looking up company registrations (and not finding them), discussions of salary costs, etc.

To compare it to "George Soros is paying hundreds of thousands of crisis actors to show up at BLM protests" is begging the question, with respect to what a conspiracy theory actually is.

Unfortunately a lot of the arguments he makes are also... irrelevant at best and at worst does the sort of attribution of familial sin that is the hallmark of both our nativist immigration policy and the ugliest episodes in our country's history such as the Japanese internment post-Kuramatsu. Cold-War era communist regimes loves medals and fancy titles and in some cases one would be viewed as a liability without them. Also, in these states where almost all business is owned or at least partly owned by the state there are state functionaries everywhere, political cadres were run of the mill. In fact, switching out the backgrounds you can make these sorts of conspiratorial assumptions about lots of people, including me. My grandparents were actual Chinese Communist Party officials in the 70s and 80s. I currently live in the Vegas area where I trade cryptocurrency and work on projects that I've used an LLC as to legally avail myself to the protections they bring. Now, I also went to law school, became a public defender and then went into immigration, which got me blackballed by the Chinese consulate after I represented some dissidents in their immigration cases, including Falun Gong followers. Since you can't FOIA the Chinese consulate, all I need is to spin up a poorly engineered Twitter clone on a k8 cluster I already have running and I'm the Chinese version of this pair, bonus points if I post some Soros memes then? And 2 months later it is very much obvious that they should have hired $150,000 worth of engineers instead of bootstrapping their half-assed operation on AWS without a backup plan.

The fact is, you don't need foreign interference for radical right wing domestic extremism to make sense, they exist, they have existed, they will continue to. Russia was a FOMO investor, not the guy holding coins since they were $3 a pop, and very much opportunistic. The operation screams of a deranged naivete. They figured they could host a completely unmoderated site on AWS? Even soccer streaming pirates leave DMCA contacts on their pages for crissakes, not to mention directory traversal, not knowing what "bulletproof" hosting is (which probably cost less than AWS if bandwidth was really what they were worried about). It's not that suspicious that they went to a Russian host - Chinese hosting either plays by western rules on Alicloud and the likes or requires local police to issue a permit, and the best you can do is probably buy from a Russian reseller anyway - and getting hosting for free speech in countries where free speech doesn't exist requires just enough doublespeak that took them 10 whole days to figure out? it's inept that it took them so long, really.

With the caveat that obviously my sample is skewed, during my time as a public defender I've seen a lot of conspiracy cases and most of them are incredibly poorly planned out. This isn't exactly a conspiracy as your typical criminal conspiracy to steal a couple of big screen TVs from Walmart and then return them with receipts you found in the parking lot (this happened, we didn't go to trial) but it's certainly only a notch above that in planning out their platform and scaling and potential legal matters. If Russia is in such a dire state that they are throwing their dwindling funds (a country with NYC's GDP, 60x the pop, that mostly exports timber? Ouch) at an amateur hour production like this then we should just all start running shoddy Twitter clones on cheap VPSes because it sounds like the easiest scam in the world to pull from a nation-state. And maybe they'll buy the Brooklyn Bridge too.

Democracy works best when critical thinking skills and public disclosure of information co-operate.

Better understanding why people believe in the conspiracy theories and fixing the social ills that radicalize portions of the population will be critical factors during my entire adult lifetime. For the US, and for the world at large.

We need to learn how to prevent terrorists from being created and in so doing advance as a global society.

Well the first order of business in protecting democracy is to crush the terrorists head on. Doesn’t really matter what their back story is. You must confront the terrorist first, and win. You’re not going to win the long game by losing the short one.

I was going to say the exact opposite. Well, almost. You do need some action against the most radicalised, violent elements.

Goal #1 of a radical organisation: create a division. Your narrative is that you represent a downtrodden demographic - "us" - whose misfortune is caused by those in power - "them".

Goal #2: invite hatred and repression The worst thing that can happen for you is for your division to dissolve. You have to work to make membership in your "us" group a stain on its perceived members.

Example: Islamic terrorism. Only a small group of radicals is actually involved in operations, but because they are so deliberately monstrous, and constantly claim to represent all Muslims (factionalism notwithstanding), the stain of their deeds gets spread on all Muslims. This drives a wedge between "Muslims" and "non-Muslims", eventually making that the #1 defining identity for any given Muslim.

The worse the atrocities e.g. ISIS commits in, say, the EU, the louder the voices that demand society be protected against islamic radicalism get. People start to demand that Muslims take responsibility for stopping violence committed by "their" brethren. Muslims start to lose standing in society. This breeds resentment, and reinforces the ISIS message that Muslims are a repressed group who need to fight back. This increases radicalisation, which increases violence, which increases repression, which increases resentment.

By deliberately being monstrous, a radical group can leverage a society's self-defense mechanisms as a recruitment aid. So I'm sceptical of hard-line solutions to these kinds of problems. They seem more likely to make things worse than better.

What should be done, then? I sure don't know, but some things I think should be considered:

1: Do not acknowledge the division. Certainly do not reinforce it. It is an illusion that serves the radicals.

2:Fix the root causes. The radicals' goals are irrelevant. There's no Muslim majority fervently longing for a Caliphate. There's no widespread desire for a whites-only USA among the white conservative-leaning population. What people care about is food on the table, opportunities to progress in life and better their lot, and not being singled out for ridicule and punishment day in, day out. It's the economy. When the economic prospects for large demographics tank, bad things start to happen.

3. Hope for the best. It may take a generation to see meaningful improvement in quality of life for the disaffected population under risk of radicalisation. In the mean time, the political apparatus needs to stay afloat long enough to see those results.

Agree with most of your analysis, including the absolute need to isolate and pacify the core of the extremists so that they are not able to 'infect' the masses through polarization. Just to add a few more things to the 'todo'-list:

4. Keep a check on those elements on 'our' side that are dependent on conflict with some 'other'. If the last decades have taught us anything I think it is that a polarized environment is forced on us by an alliance of extremists on both sides that thrive on conflict. People who don't shy away from provocations, false flag operations or falsified intelligence to achieve their antagonistic goals.

5. Remove as many incentives as possible for petty criminals to be recruited by terrorists. Make sure every citizen have a place and belong in society. Let's not make terrorist actions a shortcut to herostratic fame [0]

6. Actively research and promote alternatives to a revenge mentality in society. Revenge appeals to us because it is a reptilian brain response to harm on a personal basis. It is useless as a response to terrorist strategists (it just makes us their puppets).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herostratus

I agree that we should work to undermine the forces of radicalisation; outreach and social justice efforts may bear fruit in decades or centuries. Democracy is at stake today.

We must acknowledge that all the rights and privileges we enjoy in a democracy exist because they are backed up with recourse to an organisation that can defeat anyone else physically. There can be no leniency when someone threatens the government itself with physical violence; it must respond to the threat totally and severely, or else it will cease to be the government. Perhaps that plays into the hands of someone trying to divide the populace; it doesn’t really matter. This is what an existential threat looks like.

If the government does not enforce its monopoly of violence, every week you will be fighting gun battles outside your courts and legislative assemblies, just like those other failed states we’ve all read about.

I think we'd need to get more specific to talk about what kind of response is warranted. I'm certainly not saying violent acts should be ignored. What I am saying is that it's important to prosecute criminals, not members of a radical group. That needs to be a clear message. Law enforcement is targeted at criminals, not groups of people. The radicals will try to paint any government action as unfair oppression, so it's important that the reactions do not overreach, or you get the dynamic I described above.

This is an interesting take that I'd like to dig into a little more... Do you mind expanding on if there are any known ways to achieve this?

That isn't my area of expertise, but I recognize that I would like those who are experts to examine the situation and make such proposals.

I did mention one basic thing that I think would help. Better critical thinking education. Help people understand common logical fallacies. Help people consider critically that others might be lying out of self benefit and to focus added skepticism against any claims that might align with such incentives. Focus on emotion as a tool for knowing where to focus more of that light of logic on the situation and examine why those feelings arose. To not blindly believe but to seek the truth of a situation.

There's a CBC article at the top of hackernews right now, headlined "Nearly half of adult Canadians struggle with literacy" [0]

The article makes a point of stating that most Canadians leave school with those skills, but they atrophy over time until Canadians either need to re-learn them for a career change, or lose them entirely.

I'm unconvinced focusing more on reading comperhension and considering sources in school is any sort of fix here, considering those are skills we leave school with. It won't help, IMO, when 49% of Candian adults cannot disregard irrelevant information to complete a task (as referenced in the article). These are skills that won't be practiced, and therefore will be lost.

[0] https://www.cbc.ca/radio/costofliving/let-s-get-digital-from...

We already know the answer to a lot of this. Algorithms that increase "engagement" by promoting controversy promote conspiracy theories, because conspiracy theories are controversial and get everybody arguing.

The first generation of response to this was to tweak the algorithm to favor "trusted" sources, but still promote controversy. This seems to be going extremely poorly, because it's encouraging the "trusted" sources to become radicalized in an effort to get promoted by the algorithms.

The actual solution probably involves not optimizing for engagement anymore, but that's a business model change.

Nice thought, but whose critical thinking skills? Unrealistic to think that more than a tiny minority of people would choose that over gut reaction. The latter is human instinct at work, and the former takes energy (see Kahnemann).

"When the rights of the people denied, the people rightly resist. If the concerns are not acknowledged then peace and security are inevitably threatened." - The U.S. ambassador to the U.N.

All we did so far is just ignoring the problem really. Fire is still smoldering under the ashes, and I hope we don't ignore this for the next 4 years.

The only way out of this mess is really first to give proper and clear answer to those that are concerned instead of blocking them. And meanwhile, also hold those resourceful politicians that are making this mess with their populist tactics accountable for their false claims and their actions in the court.

Maybe we should start running government like a company. You can't survive as a bad manager for a long time. But, bad politicians can stay in politics for their entire life while their mistakes costs much more than a manager.

Companies go bankrupt all the time, in fact, they tend to always do that. You're promoting survivorship bias.

Also, establishing policies are nothing like business, as incentives are orthogonal.

"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Gilmore

Now 2021 is shaping up to be one interesting year... thoughts folks?

Free speech, from Russia...

And my-oh-my the political leverage is colossal

I bet the US Gov. will try to block it... it will be the start of the great firewall?

I'll take that bet. The U.S. will not block it.

one dime it is.

Russia isn’t pro free speech, they’re pro internal US conflict.

The irony

Free speech, so long as it agrees with the Putin government.

Otherwise you will likely end up poisoned like Navalny or happen to fall off a balcony like so many Russian journalists.

It's pretty amusing. To quote an (in)famous xkcd. The private companies told the Right they were assholes and showed them the door. And now Russia is stretching out a hand and saying: you are welcome in my house.

And of course the Left is upset. The Right were supposed to become friendless losers with imaginary friends[0]! Not befriend other people! That's cheating!

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25817605

The rights new friends seem to have a tenancy to poison their political opponents with nerve agents.

the US is becoming a risky place to host your infra.

you can be deplatformed on a whim, as a result of petty internal ideological resistance anywhere in your supply chain. no infrastructure partner will go to bat for you, they'd rather forgo your money in favor of passing a regime's purity test

you might also be subject to sweeping legislation that allows the US govt to act against you if you are not politically aligned

if this continues, the US will be an unfavorable jurisdiction for infrastructure. its just easier to find a less charged environment where you have clarity

Somehow I think 99.9% of businesses will manage without giving it a second thought.

Which regime would you recommend?

Anywhere with a strong, independent legal system e.g. EU, Canada, Australia, Japan etc would never tolerate an app like Parler being used to incite an insurrection.

Any countries without one e.g. China, Russia, Saudi Arabia would also not tolerate it as it could equally be used to incite an insurrection.

So very curious where you think this "safe" place is in the world.

Twitter and facebook tolerate the use of their apps to set up autonomous zones within american cities and incite users to riot, loot, commit arson and murder cops so why doesn't parler just use a similar hosting infrastructure to whatever they use?

I’ll pretend this is an argument in good faith and point out the explicit intent in the messages to commit crimes is the point.

Organization of a protest that draws 100,000 where a small number commit crimes is much different than rallying 100,000 with the stated purpose of committing crimes.

Widespread vandalism and looting during BLM protests cost the insurance industry and estimated $2 BILLION. Hardly small potatoes.

Seeing as organising the set up of autonomous states within American cities is allowed on twitter on facebook, the tiny number of Trump supporters who entered the capitol and could just say they wanted to set up an an autonomous state there.

I’m curious what you think the solution would be. Ban the hash tag BLM? Ban anyone who supports BLM protests?

It seems you want Twitter to do more and that’s fair, but the question is what more should they do?

BLM found wide spread support. HN had a George Floyd banner. Should HN be banned from its hosting account?

Which regime purity test would that be?

Twitter has said _for years, during his "regime"_ (funny that you used that word) that if Trump wasn't a "public figure", he would have been banned.

In 2021, western democracy will continue to be attacked from within and from the outside. Especially with the US in pandemonium, Putin and the CCP will no doubt exploit the opportunity.

Then there is the thought-policing of big tech and social media. 2021 is definitely shaping up to be a crucial year, a time when people need to wake up, get informed and defend freedom while they still have it.

Parler is basically irrelevant at this point. Anyone can stand something up on the internet, but without mainstream technical and legal support it is politically dead.

The most influence it will exert is in mainstream news articles about its fate, and opinion pieces about free speech from American philosophy majors.

Regardless of hosting, Parler seems to be dead in the water given how much of the Internet is accessed via mobile devices, and Parler being banned from all (both) major app stores.

Web apps still exist, and can be installed to the Android/iOS home screen. Sites like Gab which are banned from major app stores are designed to be used this way.

When I use Twitter or Facebook, I do so exclusively via Chrome on mobile. I want to give adtech companies as few native hooks as possible into my smartphone.

They definitely exist, and can be installed to home screens.

It is however a huge hurdle to user acquisition, which is the angle I was referring to. The obscurity of Gab kind of supports that point. All kinds of products and services can exist, but if you get booted of all the main channels you are doomed to be an obscure niche at best.

Maybe. That said, Gab just added 3 million users in 12 days:

https://twitter.com/getongab/status/1351448855422799874

I created an account out of curiosity, and three of the default “Suggested Groups” were for QAnon conspiracy believers. One group has over 100k followers.

I’m not sure where all this hate on parler is coming from.

While Twitter allowed the trending of #AssassinateTrump and #killtrump plus all the violence and destruction orchestrated on Twitter during the BLM protests on hundreds of small businesses in America where far more damage and fatalities occurred then the capital riots and big tech especially Apple, Amazon and Facebook were quite about.

This is a collaboration against conservatives and the greatest form of censorship America has ever experienced. This is how democracy dies.

1. 99.9% of posts about #KillTrump are from conservatives complaining about the keyword. And even back when it was trending at no point was there a specific threat. Whereas Trump and Guiliani were in DC, in front of the Capitol building and directly inciting the attendees. That's the difference.

2. Plenty of conservatives right now on Twitter, Facebook etc. In fact most of them became well-known through those services. Just those who have continued to incite people have been banned (after having been warned on multiple ocassions).

> far more damage and fatalities

Name the fatalities from BLM activities.

How many do you want? Because there have been dozens of murders, even entirely setting aside accidental and incidental deaths.

> 5 in one event?

The official number for 2020 appears to be 25 (not including last week), however conservatives seem very interested in representing this as a list of "people BLM murdered" when it's really a list of all deaths due to political violence. It includes people who were killed by police, individuals murdered by far right individuals, and that one guy shot by a left wing extremist at a protest.

individuals murdered by far right individuals

During the summer’s BLM activities? Name one.

Two people were murdered by Kyle Rittenhouse, a boogaloo adherent murdered a courthouse guard in California. There's three.

I'm particularly well-read on the Rittenhouse case. I've seen all the livestreams and tracked new developments as the case approaches trial. My impression of the case clearly differs from yours. I will outline my view and the evidence behind it:

Kyle Rittenhouse is not far-right or a "Boogaloo adherent." There is no evidence to back those claims. These claims were made early on with zero proof by US Congresswomen Ayanna Pressley [0], then widely repeated as truth. In actual fact, he's a teenage Republican and former Public Safety Cadet [1].

He acted in self-defense. Extensive video evidence and witness testimony proves this [2]. I'll be surprised if the jury returns a guilty verdict. If you disagree, I'd ask that you review his legal team's video [2] which lays forth most of the evidence in Kyle's favor. Their analysis aligns with and augments that done by the New York Times' Visual Investigations team [3].

The assembled evidence is clear, compelling, and exonerates Rittenhouse. A deep-dive convinced progressive columnist Eric Zorn at the Baltimore Sun of Kyle's innocence [4]. Few of those writing about the case on Twitter and in print have immersed themselves in the evidence this way.

As to the California Boogaloo guy, Steven Carrillo: sure, you could call the him far-right. He wasn't a fan of police, Donald Trump, or the Republican Party, per crime scene graffiti and his social media [5]. The Boogaloo movement in general is not ideologically consistent, or consistently far-right, as outlined by GWU professor and extremism researcher JJ MacNab [6]. But to your point, he wasn't part of the Black Lives Matter movement.

Carrillo and his accomplice murdered 2 victims. That leaves a significant number of deaths for which the violent elements of BLM remain responsible, and for which almost no one has been held accountable, even just in the public discourse. The tension between those downplayed crimes and the media spotlight on unruly conservatives has stoked anger among many on the right.

[0] https://twitter.com/ayannapressley/status/129878054043122483...

[1] https://www.tmj4.com/news/local-news/report-kenosha-shooting...

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4dhPM99i4I&t=45s

[3] https://twitter.com/trbrtc/status/1298839097923063809

[4] https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/eric-zorn/ct-column-r...

[5] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/man-charged-deputy-ambu...

[6] https://twitter.com/jjmacnab/status/1266767564627034121

I'm curious what you make of Kyle Rittenhouse posing with Proud Boys and flashing white power hand gestures, if that changes your calculus regarding his political beliefs at all.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/01/14/kyle-ritten...

This happened in the last few days, so I hadn't seen it. Neither had Rep. Pressley when she made her tweet many months ago.

Doesn't alter the case in the least. Still clear self-defense. Post-hoc assignment of affiliation doesn't stick. An earlier court search of Kyle's social media revealed no far-right affiliation [0]. As things are now, the media made him a pariah, so only pariahs like the Proud Boys will accept him. Same thing happened with George Zimmerman; the sad yet predictable outcome of forcing someone out of polite society. And that’s not to mention all the death threats [1], which would probably make the offer of Proud Boy protection appealing.

The meaning of that hand sign's in the eye of the beholder, as anyone familiar with its history will know.

[0] https://www.wpr.org/sites/default/files/rittenhouse_response...

[1] https://patch.com/illinois/grayslake/rittenhouses-mom-chasti...

I still can't believe 4chan actually managed to make the OK hand sign into a white power hand sign. Pretty impressive.

  I'll give you one: David Patrick Underwood, May 29th. But that's not the point. 

  The point is: even if you count all of the deaths related to all the events around BLM protests - 19 [1] - these were over 7 months of protests, across the country, against the violence that black people see every day impacting their lives perpetrated by the people tasked to enforce the law and ensure security. On the other side you have 5 deaths in a few hours during a protest - supported by the sitting President - against the results of free and fair elections that they just didn't happen to like.

  These are not the same - by any stretch of the imagination.

[0] https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/06/16/santa-cruz-deputys-al... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_and_controversies_dur...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_and_controversies_d...

I suspect you mean:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_and_controversies_dur...

...which is a list of all deaths surrounding the events. There are only a few that actually fall within the bounds of the question:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/22/white-supremac...

Partial list:

David Dorn [0], Lorenzo Anderson [1], Antonio Mays Jr. [2], Barry Perkins [3], Chris Beaty [4], Marquis M. Tousant [5], Oscar Lee Stewart Jr. [6], Jessica Doty Whitaker [7], Italia Marie Kelly [8].

Regular shootings and killings also spiked this summer in cities with significant BLM activity [9][10][11]. In the midst of protests and looting in Chicago, that city saw 18 murders within a 24-hour period, its deadliest single day in six decades [12].

These figures exclude excess “deaths of despair” such as from suicide, alcoholism and drug overdose that may result from the $2 billion in economic damage done mostly to private businesses [13].

[0] https://www.kiro7.com/news/trending/retired-police-captain-k...

[1] https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/teen-who-died-in-c...

[2] https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/everybody-down-wha...

[3] https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local/protester-run-over-k...

[4] https://www.indystar.com/story/news/local/indianapolis/2020/...

[5] https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-court...

[6] https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2020/10/21/authorit...

[7] https://www.foxnews.com/us/indiana-woman-shot-killed-argumen...

[8] https://apnews.com/article/18e8ec5a9b8e7175a128254d55df41e3

[9] https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2020/07/portland-sees-spike...

[10] https://www.wsbtv.com/news/2-investigates/atlanta-police-act...

[11] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/minneapolis-police-s...

[12] https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2020/6/8/21281998/chicago...

[13] https://fee.org/articles/george-floyd-riots-caused-record-se...

I'll believe you if you can find BLM people running around the centre of American Democracy looking for scalps.

> This is a collaboration against conservatives and the greatest form of censorship America has ever experienced. This is how democracy dies.

The US Electoral system is measurably biased towards conservatives, get some perspective.

https://krebsonsecurity.com/2021/01/hamas-may-be-threat-to-8... ddos-guard is interesting

Pravda.

v Pravde net izvestiy, v Izvestiyakh net pravdy

friend or foe, there are no forever in politics, when democrat sides with China, Russia will cut into the republic, America still stands divided

First line: 'Parler, a social media website and app popular with the American far right'

Parler is/was essentially a free speech libertarian site with strict rules and guidelines for posts.

I find it disturbing that the overwhelmingly US neo conservative liberal media companies slap the label 'far right' on just abut anything that doesn't fit their world view and agenda. Any sort of recognition there are center right or moderate conservatives appears to have been cancelled.

Regarding extremists, It's the old story - ban it and it will go underground. Free speech is always better and is also a cornerstone of western democracy. The irony of Parler having to be hosted in fascist Russia is extreme and embarrassing for the western world.

Strict rules and guidelines that were apparently violated, and they took no action to resolve - this is a paper thin excuse that no one should repeat.

This comment isn't helpful. Could you support it with instances of when they took action versus when they didn't? Currently, you only posted your opinion.

I can only post my opinion. Although I did join Parler and explored it this summer I haven't followed it closely or used it much. I did read their terms and conditions.

What I do know is that Facebook played a far larger role in the organization of the #stopthesteal demonstrations and the associated capitol security failures earlier this month but have received no sanctions.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2021/01/18/facebook-sher...

> I find it disturbing that the overwhelmingly US neo conservative liberal media companies slap the label 'far right' on just abut anything that doesn't fit their world view and agenda. Any sort of recognition there are center right or moderate conservatives appears to have been cancelled.

This is because "far right" has become a code-word for "neo-nazi" and/or "white supremacist/racist", so labeling everything that does no fit their preferred world view as "far right" automatically sets it up to be something so obscene that it should be banned in the minds of their viewership.

And of course, what you see is the beginning of the banning happening right before your eyes.

Parler's CEO freely admitted that they were monitoring "antifa sites" and would ban anyone who appeared affiliated.

There are also many comments from Parler moderators, and staff, and examples of left-wing positive commentary being deleted.

So it seems that there's definitely a suitability to the "right" label, if not "far right".

Let's be very clear, Parler is not a free-speech site.

Where did Parler's CEO 'freely admit this'? I couldn't find any evidence of that in fact quite the contrary.

Now deleted Tweet, apparently: https://imgur.com/WaAMEyn

> To all the ANTIFA supporters who have been spinning up Parler accounts... next time you should leave your chat server private... Im pretty sad you guys kicked me out... PS. Your VPNs cant save you

Does it seem like the more “democracy” is threatened, the more Russia is invoked? From Snowden to now, well this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com