Can someone explain the difference between Gab and Parler to someone unfamiliar with both?
Gab's current iteration is a mastodon fork (although iirc they don't participate in the fediverse via activitypub). Gab is similar to Twitter like Parler but is less of a direct clone, offering other features Twitter doesn't have.
Gab has been along for longer and seems to be more popular. Both market to the (mostly American) far right, with their shtick being basically "you can say anything that is not directly illegal in the US without fear of being banned or other moderation". Gab seems to have been more competent in coming back up after bans from their hosting provider and other partners.
It’s incredible that supporting free speech is considered to be only important enough to the “far right” now to be worth marketing to.
Free speech used to be something all Americans supported and defended.
Doesn't mean that other Americans no longer consider free speech important.
Why do people who espouse free speech want to take away freedom to choose who one associates with?
The US already limit companies "Right of Association" by virtue of things like Providers of Last Resort (that's the extent of my knowledge on this topic in the context of America) so it's not an alien concept.
Do you feel that the electricity company should be able to cut off your power supply because you made a blog post they don't agree with? How about your mobile phone provider? And if not, why are online services treated any differently?
These platforms are being used by white nationalists and other extremists to normalize their hateful ideology and encourage violence against anyone with different gender orientations, nationality, ethnicity, or religious beliefs.
Gab and Parler have zero interest in free speech as a human right. They want unlimited free speech for acceptable groups (mostly white straight Christians) and no rights for anyone else.
Users on those platforms have posted their intent to hurt and kill others, that content was never moderated, and those users carried out acts of violence. Companies who don't want to be associated with that have disconnected their services ahead of the inevitable legal action to shut the services down.
Literally no one in the US has had their electricity or phone cut off because of a "disagreeable blog post." It's a ridiculous example to bring up in the sea of information about what's going on in those forums.
But why do should people be forced to associate with neonazis against their will? Expressing neonazi and white nationalist propaganda does not make one a a protected class so businesses are free to refuse to provide them service. Does McDonald’s have the right to refuse service to cater a klan rally?
I'm not actually sure where I stand on the issue in it's totality, I try to prevent myself from giving a knee-jerk response simply because the example being used is emotionally inflammatory. I do feel it's more a gradient than a binary issue though.
Edit: Upon re-reading, I misinterpreted this question sorry. The example you supplied might be as apt, but it's just one end of the spectrum. I also can't help but feel that it's like comparing my local Cafe (Switch Cafe in New Brighton, if you're interested) to McDonalds and calling it a free-market success story.
> But why do should people be forced to associate with neonazis against their will?
Why should a company - which is not a person, and something I think is being overlooked in this discussion - be forced to associate with anyone against their will? As I previously mentioned, there are several industries that can't refuse their service and there are several classes to which no industry may refuse their service. If we are looking for justification, I suggest we use the same logic applied in those cases.
> Does McDonald’s have the right to refuse service to cater a klan rally?
Obviously. I'm not sure where this is leading though, so I'll wait before commenting further.
While the ideology is terrible, hateful, close minded, harmful, etc, we tolerate their right to speech because no one knows when you might be the next “Neo Nazi”. A flick of the switch politically, and TPTB might find that LGBT speech is hateful. Perhaps people new to the tech industry don’t remember a time when being a computer nerd was anti-social, and clashed with the norms of society. Sure there are consequences to this ideology. People can get hurt and people’s lives can be impacted. But that is the price to live in a free society. Speaking to your last question, I think McDonalds should absolutely have the right to refuse service to a Klan member. But if I was in charge of McDonalds I would serve them. Because IMHO the outcome of a society where speech is no longer free, either by corporate cancel culture or government regulation, is not a society I want to live in.
And that “perhaps people new to...etc” is a nice backhanded appeal to authority and it falls flat.
Edit: hacker news has rigorously enforced comment guidelines, why is that okay? Why is it not bad per what you say: > “ Because IMHO the outcome of a society where speech is no longer free, either by corporate cancel culture or government regulation, is not a society I want to live in.”
Ultimately, as a business owner, it’s not my (our?) job to direct culture. In fact it is kind of disturbing someone with enough money could change society to their whims. I’m here to create value for myself and the people around me. Political crusades are best left outside the professional/corporate environment.
Once you have that epiphany you can see that creating value for yourself and the people around you is a form of directing culture and vice-versa.
You don't need to actually own a platform to leverage it for your side in a culture war, you only need to know how to exploit it. If you want your platform to be neutral, you need to monitor and moderate it carefully: if you don't choose what culture permeates your platform, others will be glad to choose for you, and I think it's foolish to think it'll be any better.
It could also mean that nazis like your bar.
I've seen this argument get politicized too much to the point of it being emotional. Like your nazi reference.
Social platforms should be moderated according to law. Whatever users legally & lawfully discuss in your platforms should not restricted. And this kind of applying pressure towards platforms worries me. They are merely tools. Let the law deal with this issue and leave free speech alone.
Imagine if email providers were not allowed to filter. Your email would be totally unusable.
Enacting no filters beyond what's illegal would make most of the internet unusable. Like imagine if HN had no moderation? It would lose its original purpose.
So what do you mean support free speech exactly? Allow people to freely post porn, scams, lies, death threats?
If, by chance, they're anything like me, then I agree that there's giant categories of prohibited speech that should remain so. Lying about medicine, slander, libel, incitement to violence to name a few.
I have a suspicion that there might be a communication barrier somewhere between you and your friends. I'm a bit out on a limb here, so forgive my presumptions if they're off base. I mean no offense.
It's possible that your friends have learned that, when talking to you, 'free speech' is only worth defending when it's offensive, neo-nazi style speech. Then, without making explicit the change in vocabulary usage, they run with it -- ending up in a bad spot where they're saying get rid of 1st Amendment. There's no winners in this story, just unfortunate misunderstandings.
Again, disregard if this is nonsense. I've been witness to similar disagreements in the past, so I'm offering my 2c since I think you're making the good faith effort to represent, even while exasperated, the views of your friends.
Speaking of finding common ground, I thought the recent GME schenanigans were notable in that folk on both extremes of the political spectrum seemed to agree that it was fun "sticking it to the man". Was anyone here not cheering the "irrational" retail traders on?
Sorry, did I misunderstand you?
If you really intended to be genuine in your desire to find common ground with folk of differing political views from your own, I once again invite you to share your personal beliefs on the topic of societal damage caused by data breaches, or your thoughts on the recent GME stock market manipulation.
Are you willing to accept the challenge of accepting the rules of engagement I put forth - Acknowledge that neo-nazis are a problem, briefly state why?
---
I think the GME stuff is a bit nuts, personally. I found the whole thing entertaining, but I find it hard to believe that most participants won't be hurt in some way in the long run. I'm not sure how much small time investors understand that. Optimistically, maybe this is a collective learning experience that does minimal harm to a large number of people, and we all come away from the experience with a better idea of how the stock market works. Maybe then we can make better informed electoral decisions? Feels a bit too optimistic, but hey.
Better than meme stocks vs hedge funds, imo, would be to have a working system for accountability and enforcement at the SEC- been lacking for decades, from what I understand.
-------
Societal damage caused by data breaches. Idk, it's a bit large as a topic. Do I like that a bunch of personal data just got dumped? Not the biggest fan, no. I wouldn't want it to happen to me, certainly.
I do think it's useful to have the data there to show how much the platform is for hate and organizing around hate. It seems like there should be a better way to expose this kind of thing.
----
I'd be surprised if you also engage in a genuine discussion on your own terms.
I love surprises, but I've been on the internet long enough not to expect them.
I think for a proper useful evaluation, we equally need to see a similar full dump from other platforms like Facebook, Twitter etc. who are the standard when it comes to social media.
I am personally not too convinced the content is that different, but rather some platforms just have more diverse political allegiances.
The full history would also tell us if these ideas were more common when they're smaller network but when they grow they aren't etc.
The other thing we need to evaluate is if these platforms are just made of people banned from primary platforms and if that's the case, are these platforms really responsible for the surge of these types of people and perhaps what is a way to fix these societal issues as they continue to exist rather than disappear?
Gab and Parler have moderators too too, but the content they moderate is a lot more refined. I suspect proportionally, they're actually more to a per user ratio than FB or Twitter.
An equivalent prompt for discussion on the topic of neo-naziism would perhaps be, "I believe that neo-naziism is a problem. Do you agree with me? Why or why not?" I'll happily respond to that.
I think neo-naziism is one of the many appalling and terrible extremist ideologies that exist in the world, and people that willingly engage in it are bad people. In the general sense, it's certainly a problem; the world would be a better place if neo-nazis didn't exist. Within the context of politics in the United States, it's hard to say that it's a genuine problem. I'm an American, and I don't know of anyone within any degree of separation that would be fairly considered a neo-nazi, or is afflicted by neo-naziism. I live on the coast, though, and so may be in a bubble that's out of touch with other parts of the country. From my point of view, I think the problem is more that neo-naziism is a label that has been weaponized by the political left to rally their base against the political right. It seems comparable to the political right labeling their opponents as similarly nasty things to rally their base against the political left. I think it's about as likely that neo-naziism is a widespread concern within the political right as much as it is likely that the political left has a problem with child eating demon worshippers. It all seems like nonsense that doesn't match reality.
I agree with you on GME that it's unfortunate if anyone created a financial hardship for themselves by investing when they didn't understand the situation. I also agree that government oversight that actually functions effectively within its purpose would be way better than what we have now. I'm curious what your thoughts are on cryptocurrencies like bitcoin? I personally hate them, mainly for the environmental waste that proof-of-work algorithms create, but also for the blatant disregard for the majority of the world population's traditionally accumulated wealth.
For reference: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
The FBI disagrees with you quite a bit on whether neo-nazis & co are a problem.
This is why I insist so much. This is why so many on the left insist so much on this particular test. Pretending the problem isn't a problem is a thing that is actively causing harm to the country.
The truly bizarre thing about the "woke" movement is that they seem to have absolutely no conception that the stuff they're doing to others can just as easily be done to them.
You might be surprised at how fast this kind of thing can turn around.
https://www.amazon.com/True-Believer-Thoughts-Movements-Pere...
Edit: more recommended reading:
I doubt Paul graham equates neonazi propaganda with his examples of past situations where you could believe something that was later thought of as very wrong: “ how can you be sure you wouldn't also have believed everything you were supposed to if you had grown up among the plantation owners of the pre-Civil War South, or in Germany in the 1930s”
Are you saying that in 30 years that society will collectively think neonazi beliefs are correct and thus we were crazy to ostracize them? And you are saying that is why we should stop censoring them? Because in a future state we might live in a dystopia we should stop censoring the people trying to create the dystopia? And also that censoring neonazis is akin to those example like being anti slavery in the antebellum south? Is this your take away? Those arguments sound rather farcical and Paul himself actually explains why that is.
Paul says this: “Of course, we're not just looking for things we can't say. We're looking for things we can't say that are true, or at least have enough chance of being true that the question should remain open.“
There is no doubt about neonazi propaganda. Whether or not it is true is not an open question. White supremacist propaganda maybe being right is not an open question.
Like another comment mentioned, it’s mind boggling that those making these arguments think those on the left aren’t aware of censorship, legal and societal, given how recently one could be persecuted for being too left and labeled a communist or arrested, ostracized and more for being lgtb.
I don’t believe those making the arguments actually believe the surface facade of pointing out “unconsidered information”, so there must be some alternative purpose to the argument. It almost be like trying to constantly remind someone who was shot and also lost someone of how dangerous guns are and that’s why even violent felons needs gun.
It’s also arguing victims should be glad they are continuing to be victimized and that they should help and defend their attackers.
Leftists are generally aware of this risk, because today there is no shortage of similar social pressure against leftist ideas, and do not think it's a concern. The problem is not that it's never occurred to them.
One reason why it's not a concern is that there's no reason to believe that a principled stand against this tactic by the left will have any influence on the right. Conservatives in Hollywood in the middle of the last century did not blacklist communists in response to any similar activity by communists; they did so spontaneously. So there's no reason to fear an increased risk of use of this tactic. Nobody is getting ideas they didn't already have.
Censorship always becomes about those in power staying in power. Look no further than wall street bets. That had nothing to do with left right but about control and power.
Of course no one in the mainstream media is willing to consider this, because apparently wsb is financial trumpism.
Wake up. This is what the aclu warned about 50 years ago.
Second, you do understand that it's possible to believe that both are bad, right?
I do understand that it's possible to believe both are bad. I am informing you that leftists do not. (There's probably a more general phenomenon where centrists say that tools that can be used towards bad ends are bad, and people of a particular partisan tendency say that bad ends are bad and not to be blamed on the tool. For instance, liberals are generally not in favor of expanded gun rights, because they understand that guns can be used towards bad ends. Leftists are generally in favor of expanded gun rights, because they understand that, and also understand that guns can be used towards good ends.)
see stuff akin to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...
Where does this boundary lie?
Is political party unalterable? Ideology? Religion?
In general the Us recognizes race/ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation (to some degree) and religion as 'suspect classes' deserving of protection. But it's a thorny subject and understanding all the different perspectives is going to require a lot of reading.
Is free speech absolute?
If tomorrow, fox news falsely says your family is defrauding the IRS, qould you be ok with that because thwy have the right to free speech?
The intent of free speech is to have tge freedom to criticise those in power. Not to spread hate and divisions in the society.
If one wants the govt to ensure free speech, then it is implied it must also ensure a private individuals right to pursue legal actions, such as denial or service or lawsuits.
But that is not protected free speech under the first amendment.
https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/wayne/2021/0...
The problem with a very mechanistic/binary approach to legal questions is that it leaves a lot of room for antagonistic or outright threatening behavior that nevertheless remains within the bounds of legality. Experience suggests that's likely better than vague or arbitrary standards, but it's not a simple issue.
A) the actual full scope of the problem of censorship in the real world,
B) the actual rights that other people have to freely associate or filter content they find objectionable, and
C) the actual practical ways to increase free speech access.
Ignoring for a second the ideologies these people espouse, purely speaking as a free speech advocate far right people make my job harder, both because they only seem to show up to advocate for free speech in very selective situations, and because most of their ideas on how to preserve free speech are, frankly, really bad.
Most of the far right crowd isn't going to show up to bat for concepts like Net Neutrality, they're not going to be out campaigning against LGBTQ+ or sex censorship. These are the people I see in my timelines cheering on government intervention into public university curriculums. They push dangerous concepts like Section 230 repeals or nationalizing media companies, and some of their more experimental proposals are just blatantly unconstitutional. It's wild to hear proposals from people who claim that they're free speech advocates that would not hold up under almost any Supreme Court ruling. These people also don't have sophisticated ideas on how to handle spam, pornography, or copyright other than to shrug their shoulders and say that the 1st Amendment shouldn't apply to those things. And their big solution to Twitter censorship is to make new centralized platforms that (for now) cater to specifically them; there's nothing realistic or interesting or permanent about what they're proposing. It's a demographic that likes to say that they're pro-free-speech, but in my opinion a lot of that is just thoughtless rhetoric around the fact that they're mad that different people than them now have power to form their own communities and organize their own social campaigns.
So I would not call Gab or Parler bastions of free speech, and it irritates me that those sites steal headlines and place themselves at the center of these debates. Both sites are far right echo chambers filled with a lot of people who's primary experience with censorship begins and ends with the idea that nobody should be allowed to block them on Twitter. And neither site is afraid to engage in its own censorship -- the sites bill themselves as 1st Amendment advocates purely based around who they censor, not because they have compelling or innovative ideas about how to run a community in general.
I'm being a little uncharitable here, but I'm not being very uncharitable. I have almost completely given up trying to engage with far right ideas on free speech, because a significant portion of that demographic is only interested in free speech in ways that personally benefit them, and trying to assemble their views into an internally consistent philosophy has frankly been kind of a giant waste of my time. If you're worried about tech censorship, go donate to Mastodon or Matrix -- projects that are filled with people who are actually thinking about free speech in deep, thoughtful, and practical ways.
The right has nuance to it the same way the progressive left has nuance that separates them from the establishment left. I think Gab and Parler give a voice to some questionable characters. Parler, in particular, has some investors I’m not exactly a fan of. However the ecology of diverse platforms does fit in with traditionally enlightenment ideas around speech that I subscribe to. So I support them. Perhaps we disagree what it means to be thoughtful. I think that’s a fair debate.
Speaking to your point about echo chambers, I agree this is probably the biggest societal and technological problem facing us today. How do we get people to see we aren’t all that different and want to debate complex issues? Far right” and “Radical Left” are not terms that inspire debate and critical thinking. It’s almost as if society wants to dumb us down and lower the human consciousness.
I'm willing to engage with Conservatives who are genuinely grappling with free speech and aren't falling into those contradictions, but I'm also not going to pretend that Gab has ever been a good faith actor in that conversation. Being upfront about the obviously hypocritical sections of both the far right and many mainstream GOP senators is a necessary part of that engagement. It means acknowledging that Conservatives are diverse, but also being blunt about the overall direction (in the context of the legislation, surveys, platforms like CPAC, and general official party statements coming out) that the party is going is not in a pro-free-speech direction. Because if I'm not upfront about those things, then the conversation just devolves into reexplaining freedom of association for the 20th time. And that devolution of discussion also crowds out the Conservatives who actually do care about free speech who might have something interesting to say.
Part of this is that I actually do care about free speech, so I have a vested interest in making progress during conversations, in moving past basic ideas that the free speech community has already hashed out, and instead engaging with more complicated ideas that are more important right now. I don't want to waste time rehashing the same debates over and over again just because people like Ted Cruz, Andrew Torba, and Donald Trump don't understand the free market. Not only because I don't really want to engage with those people in general, but also because the actual free speech debate matters, and those people are holding it back.
My frustration here was a response to a comment arguing that criticism of Gab as a platform was a sign that Americans overall no longer care about free speech. I'm happy to engage with Conservatives that have more nuanced views, but again, in my experience those are usually not the people who are trying to sell Gab as a free speech utopia. And to the original comment's question of why "free speech" platforms like Gab often tend to market primarily to a very specific segment of the alt right, it's important to understand that it's not because everyone else hates the 1st Amendment, it's because the alt right uses the "free speech" debate disingenuously as a cloak to hide more nefarious goals.
It really hasn't, and in my opinion, neither has any other social media platform.
> My frustration here was a response to a comment arguing that criticism of Gab as a platform was a sign that Americans overall no longer care about free speech.
Polarising the issues and gaslighting is the norm today.
It seemed every American not on the left is called "far right" from where I am sitting.
Half a dozen of my friends have moved to the States and a few have scolded me for my understanding saying that plenty of centrists are labeled far right.
I'm beginning to glaze over the label now. It doesn't hold any sway for me because it is used so flippantly.
Republicans are pretty unlikely to support such leftist notions as democratizing the means of production, whereas your average FAANG employee just might.
> It seemed every American not on the left is called "far right" from where I am sitting.
What you are seeing is polarization. At the current moment, a lot of the Republican party has moved away from more moderate Republicanism and more towards Trumpism, which is a far right movement.
Fact is that more Republican Congress members voted to punish a moderate Republican like Liz Cheney for voting to impeach Trump, than voted to remove Marjorie Greene from committee assignments for claiming school shootings and 9/11,were a hoax and that California wildfires were caused by a Jewish space laser.
It's not that anyone who isn't left is now considered far right. It's that a lot of people who were more moderate Republicans in the past, have moved much farther to the right. There are more people on the left side of the political spectrum that moved father out too, but not enough to even nominate one of the far left candidates for president.
We all know Merrick Garland should be on the SCOTUS. He isn't because a right-wing senate didn't allow a black president to nominate him.
From my perspective as a German, you have the centrist democrats that swing quite a bit in both directions, and the republicans who swing from center right to "makes our local right wing extremist party drool"-right.
I guess it's the result of having a two-party system.
America once had a very finite number of publishers who were the primary gate keepers for what published. America suppressed the works of Wilhelm Reich and Henry Miller. America once arrested members of the IWW for engaging in street corner soapbox speak-outs [1]. America engaged in anti-socialist repression on a fairly large scale.[2] It's common to reference an imaginary free speech fundamentalist era somewhere in the US past but, sorry, it's not there.
And, of course, the extreme right only pretend to be true free speech fundamentalists - Note how the dropped Milo Yiannopoulos when his speech offended them.
[1] https://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/industrial-workers... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_Raids
To make this obvious, this is not a free speech issue.
And yes it is a free speech issue when several companies that have left leaning cultures and leaders take concurrent actions to block a right leaning platform that mostly carries fully legal speech.
Why are you saying "probably"? A lot of it was backed up. You can go check for yourself, it was very markedly not limited.
Elaborating on that:
There was a mass shooting in New Zealand that was live streamed on Facebook. Now, imagine for a moment, what the public response would be if that had been on parler.
Your last line is absolutely correct: To make this obvious, this is not a free speech issue.
I've heard this claim asserted before. I am unconvinced. Can you show me some examples?
So basically transphobes that also larp as feminists.
I fail to see how evidence of hate and violence coming from trans extremists is transphobic.
a) Against whom or for what reason that incitement is happening if irrelevant.
b) Equating defending a persons right not to receive death threats to supporting their ideology is beyond dangerous.
It's a reminder, more to the point, is it a slur though?
If you are fine with denying someone's existence I am sure you can take whatever is coming to you from very people fighting against you.
> ...incitement of violence
I would disagree with the 'incitement of violence', but to be fair, I don't blame them either, I would have said the same as well.
Calling for people to be killed is never OK. Defending people who call for others to be killed is not OK.
Maybe don't deny the existence of people and perhaps you won't get those responses?
You're constantly implying that they deserve it with sentences like "Maybe don't deny the existence of people and perhaps you won't get those responses?".
I'm telling you that's being a huge dick because nobody deserves to be told that they should be killed, even if they are massive assholes themselves. And now you're trying to weasel-word your way out of it without admitting that those tweets are wrong, which sure doesn't make it seem like you disagree with them.
You can say that in response to any hateful tweet. Racism? "tweets don't kill you". Openly advocating for genocide? "tweets don't kill you". Claiming pineapple is a perfectly valid pizza topping? "tweets don't kill you".
This is not a free speech issue on any social media.
Amazon had every right to stop illegal activity on their platform.
The selective application of policy while pretending to be fair and unbiased tends to make folks cynical.
In the end, the lines we draw are often in the sand, and the legitimacy of these threats have to be weighed with the consequence of real world actions.
People storming the Capitol Hill building shouting these things posed a legitimate threat, but so do feminists shouting these things in rallies in real life, or the people burning police departments during the George Floyd protests. What we choose to condemn however, seems to be completely arbitrary to passers by.
All censorship of any speech is a free speech issue. My take is that it is sometimes justified to give consequences to speech that cause harm, but i don't think we should pretend its not a free speech issue.
Imagine someone talking loudly outside your window all night. You’d have laws made about public disturbances. Would you then be a freedom hating communist? I don’t know about that.
Now if you also have a forum where you’d like to have more family friendly conversations. Would you welcome the Nazi hatemongerer? I would think you’d moderate them out.
Imagine you have a church, and an atheist disturbs your mass by shrieking god doesn’t exist. Would you escort them out?
This is so basic to me that I can’t believe people have a hard time grasping something so obvious. I can’t help but think they are being disingenuous.
What I will not defend is someone who knowingly speaks untruths or uses language as a weapon with the intent to hurt others. Just because it uses mouth sounds doesn’t make something speech.
If you think homosexuals are an abomination and an affront to god then you’re free to believe that and tell everyone you know. But that doesn’t mean you should be allowed to shout f*g at a gay person on the street. Only the former is speech, the latter is hate.
I signed up on Gab recently to see what people were talking about on there, and the discussion is far less diverse than Twitter (there's just no comparison). Twitter has X, Y, and Z Twitter, whereas Gab basically seems to be just Q Twitter these days.
And on Gab, you'll get shouted down within milliseconds if you post something that doesn't fit the general vibe, and you'll probably be called a f#g for your trouble. (I've seen the same thing on so-called "patriot" live streams that also claim free speech absolutism but then ban you for saying anything they don't want to hear, even good-faith efforts to explain the motivations of the "other side.")
Therefore, I can confidently claim that Twitter, just as an example, cares more about and does far more to promote free speech than Gab ever could or will, even though they don't use "free speech" as a marketing cudgel.
Gab being Q twitter is probably related to this: https://twitter.com/beeeeeers/status/1358141547057848320
That said, mostly any platform that allows some kind of speech banned on mainstream platforms will initially turn into a hive of said banned content for completely obvious reasons.
> I've seen the same thing on so-called "patriot" live streams that also claim free speech absolutism but then ban you for saying anything they don't want to hear, even good-faith efforts to explain the motivations of the "other side."
This does sound sad. I've found a few places online where there are people of all manner of creeds and they're some of the best places. They usually don't contain wokelets or rabid Q people, which probably explains why they remain nice and interesting.
> Free speech used to be something all Americans supported and defended.
It's not that most Americans don't care about free speech. It's that most Americans understand that constitutional free speech means the government can't infringe on your speech, except in limited circumstances (like extortion, inciting violence, inciting panic, divulging classified material, etc).
The reason companies like Gab and Parler market 'free speech' to the far right, is because the far right often engages in trolling, harassment, incitement to violence, disinformation, and bigotry in social media. As such, they run into the moderation policies of those platforms and at some point start running into bans. Not to say other parts of the political spectrum don't run into moderation and bans too, but it's a bigger problem right now for the far right.
There's a debate to be had about the power social media giants have over public discourse and whether internet service providers should be able to blacklist companies like they did to Parler. But that still doesn't fall under the umbrella of constitutional free speech. Businesses usually have wide latitude to refuse service to customers, particularly for toxic behavior.
It happens to have a constitutional instantiation. That instantiation happens to be expressed as a restriction on the government's chartered power; this is an artifact of the process by which it was drafted, i.e. as part of a collection of proposed restraints on the powers federal government.
No reasonable person should confuse the very limited constitutional guarantee given to free speech with the norm itself.
It's only now that social media has come along and has democratized publication of text, images, and video that free speech as it relates to private businesses is becoming an issue. Maybe in the future a majority of people will decide that social media is the proverbial public square and change the law to reflect that. But the prevailing paradigm to this point has been that a company has a right (and some responsibilities) to make rules about what people post on their platform.
- Was the "free speech" norm ever widely followed? This is the one I think you're objecting to, and indeed society as a whole has never exactly been accepting of all speech. On the other hand, there are plenty of social norms that people generally believe in but frequently don't quite live up to, like presumption of innocence, or "honour your father and your mother". I don't really think this criterion invalidates conduct prescriptions as social norms.
- Was the "free speech" ideal ever widely accepted? This one seems kind of tricky if you just look at the current state of affairs, but then if you look just a few years back at the way people danced around the "hate speech dilemma" even up through 2016, I think it's pretty clear that people generally did, or at least expected others to, accept free speech as an ideal.
- What kind of social obligation is the "free speech" rule conceived as? And this is one I wanted to make a point on, specifically that the constitutional instantiation of it is not primary.
It is not the understanding that, given that the constitutional guarantee exists, there is only a restriction on Congress and e.g. everything is all peachy with a president instructing the IRS to engage in punitive auditing against Vietnam War dissidents.
It is dangerously disingenuous to frame the constitutional protection on freedom of speech as the full extent of Americans' understanding of free speech.
Discourse within the "acceptable" range has been true free speech certainly, but step outside those boundaries and throughout US history there have been serious repercussions. Common law courts have long recognized that if you walk up to someone on the street and scream obscenities at them you have no recourse when you get punched in the face - the concept of "fighting words". Even today no one bats an eye when a restaurant doesn't allow a patron to dine there when they don't meet the restaurant's arbitrary dress code or if the patron has an "offensive" t-shirt slogan. Various forms of ostracism have been used against people speaking out against what is acceptable since human society has existed.
State Governments have punished speech they don't as well. For example in the South pre-Civil War many southern states made it illegal to publish anti-slavery books, newspaper articles, and speeches. You could literally be arrested for speaking against slavery in any form.
I think the actual social norm you're talking about is acceptance of conservative political discourse and opinion. Certain kinds of political discourse have been verboten in the US (eg people were fired and blacklisted for communism) so that's not new as a concept, but this is the first time in US history there is strong pushback against conservatism.
To some degree I see this social pressure as being weaponized because so much of the US is gerrymandered and tiled in the favor of conservatives*. Despite being a minority party Republicans control a majority of state legislatures. CA gets two senators. A group of 11 rural conservative states representing the same population gets 22 senators. When a rump party that represents a strict minority of the population gets to continuously impose its will, change voting rules, pack the Supreme Court, and so forth are you truly surprised when a lot of people get angry? When some people are no longer willing to be polite about politics?
When the normal relief valve - elections having consequences - gets subverted for decades that pressure must find relief somewhere.
The pressure is even more intense now that the major conservative party in the US is openly embracing nationalism and at least some are openly advocating for ending democracy: whether you agree with it or not the Republican party has declared war on the majority of the US population. Some people are going to see that as an existential threat and respond accordingly.
* I know the pedants will want to divert discussion to how the US is arranged into separate states deliberately, federalism, etc. I am well aware of those arguments, there is no need to re-hash them. Much like calling universal healthcare and worker protections "socialism", or trying to fine/punish people and take down their video clips due to "copyright claims" all you are doing is teaching the upcoming generations that socialism is better at solving problems, copyright should be abolished, and federalism sucks. Proceed at your own peril.
That only a subset of the population wants to be marketed to under the banner of "free speech" doesn't mean that people don't care about free speech itself.
(Neither Gab nor Parler have any objection to FOSTA/SESTA's unconstitutional limitations on free speech and neither of them have any interest in standing up for the free speech rights of sex workers, let alone their ability to participate in the free market.)
It is indeed incredible, though perhaps not in the sense that you meant.
It's because private companies don't want to host their extreme views. Private companies free to regulate their own platforms is a very Republican position.
Hobby Lobby and Chic Fil A are perfect examples of right leaning companies imposing their own political views of what is acceptable on their employees and customers.
It would be liberal to regulate what private companies allow or block on their platforms, which is why Republicans complain about being cancelled but don't take action. Forcing companies to allow free speech using regulations is a liberal proposition.
Right leaning people are free to create their own platforms that cater to far right conspiracies, racism, homophobia, death threats, and white supremacists. And that's what they did
For a non-American, could you explain how this is far right? Sounds pretty liberal.
After rallying against liberals being "snowflakes" and needing "safe-spaces", Parler ironically enough ended up being just that for the extreme right.
I have seen discussions there from people on both sides of the political spectrum where neither side was downvoted to oblivion, which is more than you can say for most of Reddit.
Truth isn't welcomed there. For instance, you will be banned for simply stating that Trump lost the election
That's the point: they complain about everyone else except when it happens to them, and then suddenly it's totally just and necessary. As though the reason women, gays, lesbians, transgender, black, mexican etc. communities don't have their own spaces for the exact reason that otherwise they would be brigaded by no end of people who felt just overly necessary to drop in and talk about how they think none of their problems are valid.
/r/conservative isn't ridiculed because it's moderated aggressively, it's ridiculed because it's moderated aggressively by people who continuously argue that moderation anywhere else is an assault on free speech and wholly unnecessary.
In contrast, /r/politics claims to be about general politics but most content to the right of AOC/Bernie gets downvoted or deleted.
As Reddit has a user base that comes from the US less than 50%, this might have to do with the fact that the Overton window shifted so far to the right there that the opinions of AOC or Bernie would count as center-right pretty much everywhere else in the western world, with the Republicans being off the charts lunatic extremist right.
But that's not the only relevant dimension of policy:
Culture matters, and they are not remotely rightwing on culture.
The direction they want to move the country in matters, and they definitely don't want to move the country rightward either.
The centrist view, the average American, would be considered a leftist by conservatives. This is why they think they're getting brigaded everywhere. They are. Their beliefs are unpopular.
The only reason the US Republican party is viable while being so far right is structural voting advantages. That's why they've lost the popular vote almost every time for 30+ years. That's why 50% of senators are Republican when only ~43% of the populations votes R.
On the internet where these artificial advantages aren't present it's much more obvious that Republican policy is broadly unpopular, and conservative opinion is the minority. Or more accurately, the moderate left is actually the center, and the average Republican is substantially far right.
But I'll have to disagree, since the comment above me suggests that there are a significant number of non-American Reddit users who lean more left than the average American, skewing the upvoting patterns. I'd argue that there are a different set of "artificial advantages" on the internet, such as that.
And when I browsed r/politics during the 2016 and 2020 election seasons, it was clear that Bernie Sanders was the favored candidate by Redditors. However, more moderate politicians like Clinton and Biden actually won the nominations.
And the popular vote count is a reflection of the Electoral College process...if elections were actually decided on the popular vote, campaign strategies would be focused more on cities than rural areas shifting the results.
But it's also undeniable that the average American leans left. That's why Republicans lose the popular vote in both chambers of congress and the presidency nearly every election. Their positions are unpopular, that's why they get down voted on "mainstream" sites where the user base is large enough to revert to the mean.
And campaign focus outside of urban cores would mean that the average American is even farther left than they appear to be.
Biden is farther right than the average Democrat because he needed to be to win. The structural advantages to Conservatives means the Democratic party needs to run centrist candidates.
In comparison, the same advantages mean the Republican party can still win with extreme right wing candidates. For example, Trump was the first president that never hit 50% approval rating but it was still high enough for him to win and do okay during his second campaign.
If 2/3 of US internet users are left of conservatives, that's why they get downvoted to hell anywhere outside their safe spaces. IMO the crazy moderators on reddit are a result of the left lean, not the cause.
Reddit leaned a lot more right/libertarian before nearly all coservative subreddits were systematically banned under spez and Pao. Spez also enacted more subtle censorship like algorithmic tweaks to keep t_d out off the front page and eventually the creation of /r/popular to keep similarly "undesirable" subreddits from the front page.
The truth means nothing to those that wont listen. The Republican party is a far right monstrosity. The democrats in US are a right leaning party for all practical purposes. Hell, Biden said he would be fine running with a Republican VP.
The court documents (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/29095511/parler-llc-v-a...) from their case against Amazon contain other examples of hate speech.
I have no problem with platforms allowing any and all speech, since it actually just allows stupid speakers to beclown themselves.
Free speech is the most liberal idea there is - as Voltaire famously said, "I may disagree with everything you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
I might have missed that obviously during my five minutes of browsing there, as a result, if they really call for murdering Jews, could you provide a link to such resource - calling to murder someone is a crime in the US, so such link would be a good evidence for prosecution.
Unfortunately you have to sign up to see comments, I wonder why...
Gab looks like a version of Facebook that's mostly populated by Christian conservatives. Parler looks like a version of twitter that's mostly populated (or was, before) by Christian conservatives with a small side of some conspiracy theories.
Christian conservatives don't subscribe to the beliefs you think they do.
Non-degenerates know that long lasting liberty comes with responsibility, and that responsibility is moderation and correction.
The far right operates in degeneracy. They may fly the banner of freedom but they fly it alongside nazi flags so what do symbols and ideals even mean for them.
Compounding this is PR and network effects. Once they become known as the place for the far right, then more far righters go there, and more distant people avoid it.
Stalin and Mao would only be left wing if you prescribe to the thought that communism by nature must only be left wing. I assume your train of thought on Hitler is similar because you're likely equating the socialist word in the Nazi party to left wing socialism.
At best this is dishonest and ignoring actual policy.
One reason the Marxist kind of thought pattern is dangerous is because of something like that. The ideas in and of themselves can sound good and appealing - who wants poor people to live in squalor and so on? But if we look at what natural and sexual selection ingrains in biological life - it is by necessity kin-preferring, competitive and in non-eusocial social creatures, status seeking, for example. Things that prefer non-kin and don't compete just die out.
In that light, a sound philosophy would understand that those things can't be eradicated by human will, take the impulses and hone something constructive out of them. But Marxist thought is rationalist in the sense that it thinks doctrine and reason can mold human nature to whatever shape, and then achieve their utopistic ends. That, of course, cannot happen because we're built from competitive, kin-preferring, status-seeking genes, not utopistic ones. Marxism is incompatible with biological life, and to get biological life to comply for any length of time, it must be forced constantly, or the utopian society degrade into tyranny, which has thus far happened every single time these things have been tried. But it's never done properly, so we should try again.
I'm asking for people to delve into the so called left wing policy of the people they're claiming are left wing dictators.
So far people have only been listing people by their party names. Which would mean that North Korea is a bastion of democracy. I'm asking for substance to back up their assertions.
I have to add that "no overlap at all", may not be correct, as those points were shared by different political spectrums in the history. The point is: The core idea, is completly different.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_...
The reality is that communism as a movement spans a wide political range, and both Stalin and Pol Pot had diverged significantly from any form of leftist Marxism in their hunt for power.
Even stalinist supporters decry Pol Pot https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/pol/khmerrouge.html
Looking at simple party names is a red herring at best. It's best to look at the policy choices of the dictators in question.
Censorship is a product of political extremism though, it has no basis in one political ideology, only in how aggressively it is applied to society.
I'm not sure this demonstrates a deep understanding of the shifting patterns within Islamic culture.
On the HDI, the first majority Muslim country is the UAE, at 31, and that's probably highly skewed by its limited population, extreme natural wealth, and slavery. And considering it's involved in a human rights catastrophe in Yemen, it fails any human rights record-based index directly.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index
On the contrary, I'd say that Islam is stuck in the past, which doesn't help Muslim nations thrive and develop, and those that do, do it based on "luck" ( natural resources).
This is obviously just selection bias. Everything that changes is a loss for "conservatism"; ignore everything that stays the same, which is the majority of everything.
Here are some "conservative" (i.e. longstanding existing) policies: Due process, separation of powers, warrant requirements, freedom of speech. They are currently under attack. But the attackers are the ones on the wrong side of history -- even if they succeed, they lose, because then the monsters these policies were established to vanquish return and the polices get reinstated once the current generation has had a taste of what happens without them. But that route is a lot harder and bloodier than learning from history.
This depends on is being cancelled. It's not the left that cancelled Kapaernick or the artists formerly known as the Dixie Chicks or howled with rage that the Supreme Court - with the exception of three conservative justices - ruled their longstanding practice of cancelling gay people unconstitutional.
Kaepernick kneeling during the pledge of allegiance can only parse as an antiracist gesture if the thing being disrespected (flag/country) is presumed to be intrinsically racist, i.e. it's accusing the whole country of racism. There are a lot of non-racist patriots who would take offense to that. The answer still shouldn't be censorship, but calling any opposition racism is accepting the very premise that the people opposed to the gesture are opposing it over.
Moreover, the implication that everyone who has been canceled was a racist is contrary to evidence unless you're making some heavy tribalist assumptions about anything vaguely conservative automatically implying racism.
And you're still not addressing the original point, which was that the left going around canceling people over speech is inconsistent with freedom of speech. Nothing anyone on the right does can make that untrue.
Libertarians making money.
As glen greenwald says, censorship eventually is always about those in power staying in power. Unless you are in power it’s sad to see so much pro censorship these days.
Read up on Ira Glasser at the ACLU or watch the documentary. Why did he as a Jew defend neo nazis?
Did you ever wonder why you are calling others far right or far left? Why are you referring to other American citizens with those terms? Who is pushing those terms that divide the vast majority of normal Americans? Who stands to gain?
The fascist establishment elite are getting richer by the second, while the lower classes are calling each other insulting names and fighting amongst themselves.
There’s an old movie called They Live. When you watch it now, you can call it time shifted documentary.
It's a great movie, but a metaphor not a "time-shifted documentary", unless I missed the latest Qdrop.
Interesting position.
Things should be said based on the inherent merit of what they say, not be said just because it's not literally illegal to say them. If the only reason you can find for justifying what you say is that nobody has made a law yet to stop you (and we do have laws to stop some things from being said), then perhaps you need to find a better thing to say.
You're comparing an entire polluted pool that is unfit to swim in with a single floating turd in the ocean.
For example, today's trending topics include the "cancellation" of Dr Seuss (with many tweets giving examples of why he should be cancelled in the author's opinion) and the use of the words "latinx" and "womxn" to avoid offending people by using gendered language.
You've gone from complaining that twitter is consumed by the left to complaining that the left is allowed on twitter at all.
> For example, today's trending topics include the "cancellation" of Dr Seuss (with many tweets giving examples of why he should be cancelled in the author's opinion) and the use of the words "latinx" and "womxn" to avoid offending people by using gendered language.
Right-wingers post about that stuff 10:1 compared to anyone on the left. You're posting about it now.
I'm not complaining about anything though - are you confusing posts from different HN users? I really don't care who uses Twitter or for what purpose. I'm pointing out that it's unlikely someone could use Twitter and be unaware of left-wing posts on the platform given that Twitter themselves amplify such content daily.
Hell kpop shows up on the trending as often as leftist stuff but I don’t claim kpop controls Twitter.
far left far right
<---------------------------------------->
[Overton Window]
perceived perceived
far left far right
far left center far right
<-------------------|-------------------->
[Western O.W.]
[US Overton W.]
[ Gab users* ]
[ Twitter users* ]
There aren't nearly enough leftist talking points on Twitter as it appears to your rightist brain, and there's plenty of homophobia, "feminism has gone too far", "it's okay to be white", worldwide anti-immigration sentiments, and (still!) Trump supporters. Maybe they're bots or whatever, but the talking points are there.
If a person thinks that perhaps, maybe, there's 2 genders and not 700+, they should be prevented from civic discourse? That maybe we should not be providing chemical treatments to toddlers for gender reassignment, that's hate? If they believe that math isn't actually racist, but is an objective way of making sense of reality, are they racist? How about people who criticize Islam and argue that it is a fundamentally violent ideology? That lockdowns and "scientific" COVID-19 recommendations were harmful because Florida had fewer deaths per capita than NY or CA
Today, merely speaking any of these positions gets a person called a "transphobe" or a racist or a science denier. In addition to not convincing anyone and unfairly slandering the speakers, it destroys our ability to think as a society.
Socially "acceptable" speech has never needed legal protection (in any society, liberal or authoritarian). It's the offensive things that need protection from the book burners.
If we look at racist hate speech, people literally lecture that people who happen to look like me are "born into not being human", say the lives of people like me don't matter. We are told we should not speak and yet that our silence is violence. Trainings for "diversity" across a wide range of institutions have started segregating along racial lines, and the list goes on. During the Grievance Studies hoax, for example, one of their papers was sent back because it was too sympathetic and not sociopathic enough. Said paper advocated making white students sit on the floor and putting them in chains as a learning experience.
Yet open racism is fine, because the target ethnic group and sexual orientation are acceptable to the activist class.
Likewise, people who get kicked out for "transphobia" will often not be people who hate transpeople in any proper sense, but have policy disagreements where there are no win-win solutions. Yet anything but being completely on board with the activist class's 100% no limits pro-trans policy agenda is "phobia". The claim holds up as well as wet paper.
How about gender affirming treatment for kids who cannot physically know what sexuality properly is because they haven't been through puberty? Someone's a bit off their gender role? Tomboy, nah, they're a boy, time to stuff them full of hormones. Concerns that this just might be insane are again, labeled hate.
Said cultists insist on mantras of trans(wo-)men are (wo-)men in an explicit denial of biology that the best of our medicine can't alter: We just craft a facade that eases dysphoria to care for our fellow human beings. As Buck Angel put it: "I use testosterone to masculinize myself so I feel more like me." He's routinely called a transphobe.
This is basically the biology equivalent of flat eartherism or young earth creationism, but not subscribing to the creed is stamped hate speech. The mantra wouldn't even be necessary if its claim was actually true. Hell, it's arguably even worse than flat eartherism, since a human can't at a glance confirm that the Earth is indeed round, but TWAW/TMAM asks us to baldly deny the input of our eyes in everyday life.
It's not one side that has gone insane: Good chunks of both are open lunatics. Q at least is thankfully fringe, but even they've managed to get representatives elected.
> How about gender affirming treatment for kids who cannot physically know what sexuality properly is because they haven't been through puberty? Someone's a bit off their gender role? Tomboy, nah, they're a boy, time to stuff them full of hormones. Concerns that this just might be insane are again, labeled hate.
Trans girls have horrible anxiety about going through puberty. It's not them being "a little off their gender role". It's a fundamental dread about being given an irreversible treatment of hormones that will change their voice and secondary sexual characteristics.
Puberty is far more irreversible than HRT. The percentage of people who detransition is tiny; far more people who transition are much happier for doing so. It is also incredibly difficult to actually get HRT. The therapy is beyond the reach of most children. It's a total boogieman that this is happening left and right and all of the children are getting stuffed full of synthetic hormones.
Please educate yourself more.
Anti-trans positions are up there with "gay people are going to sexually assault my children" or "being gay is disgusting 'cause I don't like thinking about anal sex". Complete and utter bullshit based on unfounded fears.
The center and left in the US are normally not in favor of hate speech, while the right is more supportive of it.
What happens then is people who want to discuss hateful topics and post hateful speech can't easily do it on the current popular social media platforms, so they need alternatives. That's the market for Gab and Parler mostly.
At this moment, it happens that the far-right in the US has a very "hateful adjacent" messaging. They generally support and promote populist, nativist, collectivist authoritarian, and conspiracy-minded ideas. Those often overlap with hate of immigrants and non-white Christians, as well as hate of liberals and social democrats due to believing in their participation in demonic conspiracies. They also tend to suggest violent and authoritarian methods to get what they want, like killing their opposition or storming the capitol, and other forms of violent insurection. Thus they fall in the market category of Parler and Gab pretty strongly.
It's mostly the far-right aka radical right, the regular right in the US does not all prescribe to these and don't all have "hateful adjacents" messaging.
Also some more extremist current left movements also have "hateful adjacent" messaging, though maybe less so, when they do it's often targeted specifically at the far-right, most likely as a reactionary measure.
Also, there are reports of such left-leaning accounts being banned and censored on Parler and Gab, hard to say how true this is, but even if a rumor, it keeps the less radical right from trusting them. And so they are often considered to falsy upheld free speech.
The left is very supportive of hate speech, it just has to have the right target. There's abject, open racism against whites all day. Black people attacking Asian people is white supremacy nowadays.
I'm personally more centrist overall, but I've tried as much as I could to give an unbiased summary, though being unbiased in those cases is hard. I'm trying not to judge the behavior, just observe it.
One thing I have observed is that the current moderate left in the US does seem to align more with Canada/UK/France style of free speech, with a broader definition of what is considered hate speech and stronger enforcements against it. Where as the right seem more aligned with the traditional American view on it, where hate speech is limited only if it can be shown to have directly and immediately caused lawless action.
This seems to be the crux of the issue as well. With the big social media platforms available today, it has enabled hateful speech to have more reach at a wider scale than ever before. It also enabled not only Americans to reach others, but even non-Americans can promote and propagate hateful messaging in a targeted and strategic way. The question is what if anything should be done about this, could it lead to instability and divide and throw the country in turmoil, or maybe it's actually a good thing and will allow more voices to be heard and considered.
It's the age old trade off of free speech and restricted free speech. Where do you draw the line? What risks are there on either side of it?
And my observation has been the right leaning Americans seem to still consider that there should be no regulations on this, and everyone everywhere, even non Americans, should be allowed to freely share, promote, upvote, and target any message they want, even hateful, no matter the intent behind it, because upholding the right to speak up and against the government is more important and so we should stay as far as possible from threading water or any slippery slope.
And my observation is the left leaning Americans seem more cautious, and think some regulations might be needed, to make sure that no bad actor takes advantage of this, or that discourse doesn't rely purely on emotions and hate targeted reasonings. And that not doing so would actually bring more instability and chaos, and the risk of threading the line between restricted but still free speech and non free speech is worth it, or maybe an exagerated concern, where they don't think in practice it would be difficult to distinguish dissenting views from hateful ones or those with bad actors behind them.
It's liberal in the same way it would be liberal to have a party where you walk around naked and smear feces on each other.
Definitely a liberal party, but not one that most people want to participate in. Most people would rather have moderation where you're not allow to scream the N word at blacks. Which concentrates N word screamers and similar onto these free speech forums
Liberals are being called racists and anti-democracy as a way of attacking and deplatforming anyone who disagrees with the leftist tribe. This isn't about values, it's about tribal allegiance.
If you actually believe that these people are far-right racists then there is a strong chance that you are being fooled by tribal manipulation.
Generally the argumentation presented is a dogwhistle for fringe elements (nazis, other unpleasant people, etc). Sadly they are currently dominated by far-right ideologies (and ofc the inevitable sexual predators).
That's not right at all. They both ban adult content and Gab will ban blasphemy. They also frequently remove drug content.
They're stricter on banning speech than Twitter and the sites they fled from.
it's not censorship when you like it!
*) we = right leaning americans
probably correct that they censor based on conservative opinions. not correct that right leaning americans are conservative. all conservatives are right leaning tho. not the other way around.
The "right" was merely copied from an ancestor post.
In most cases, you'd probably be correct in thinking that the person would be more inclined to preserve the status quo than changing it too quickly, for fear of unforeseen consequences.
Also, a simple Google search and 30-second skim of Wikipedia throws a wrench in your assertion.
This does not encompass reactionary conservatives that have become incredibly prominent as a political group in the United States, to the point of completely taking over one of the two political parties.
https://cnsnews.com/news/article/penny-starr/state-dept-offi...
They're not a free speech network, they're just a network where racism is permitted speech and anything they don't like is banned.
...of allowing certain speech.
Because that's, obviously, what “free speech” means.
Blasphemy is different but I haven't seen corroborating evidence of that.
Even if they did ban blasphemy, it would still be less strict on banning speech than Twitter where entire heads of state have been banned for saying words people don't like (or for being from Iran)
Parler was happily banning leftist viewpoints.
It's raison d'etre was not so much 'you can say anything that's not directly illegal', and more 'you can say anything that the far right approves of' (Some of which, most notably the death threats cited by AWS, also happens to be directly ilelgal.)
So it has roots in the alt-right/nazi/4chan community and predates parler by a lot.
They used to have their own software, then switched to mastodon, but turned off the peering and added custom code apparently full of SQL injection.
Parler is very new and has roots in more conservative circles. It’s written from ground up and is apparently pretty bad, although it’s not working anymore.