Parler Returns To Apple's App Store (reuters.com) 148
Parler, a social media app popular with U.S. conservatives, returned to Apple's App Store on Monday, after the iPhone maker dropped it following the deadly Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol. From a report: Parler also named George Farmer, the company's chief operating officer since March, as its new chief executive and said interim CEO Mark Meckler would be leaving. Apple said last month it would readmit Parler into its iOS App Store, after Parler proposed updates to its app and content moderation policies. read more "The entire Parler team has worked hard to address Apple's concerns without compromising our core mission," said Meckler in an emailed statement.
"Anything allowed on the Parler network but not in the iOS app will remain accessible through our web-based and Android versions. This is a win-win for Parler, its users, and free speech." The Washington Post said Parler's Chief Policy Officer Amy Peikoff likened the iOS version of the app to a "Parler Lite or Parler PG." Parler is still pushing Apple to allow users to see hate speech behind a warning label, the newspaper reported. Several tech companies cut ties with Parler after the Capitol riot, accusing the app backed by prominent Republican Party donor Rebekah Mercer of failing to police violent content on its service.
"Anything allowed on the Parler network but not in the iOS app will remain accessible through our web-based and Android versions. This is a win-win for Parler, its users, and free speech." The Washington Post said Parler's Chief Policy Officer Amy Peikoff likened the iOS version of the app to a "Parler Lite or Parler PG." Parler is still pushing Apple to allow users to see hate speech behind a warning label, the newspaper reported. Several tech companies cut ties with Parler after the Capitol riot, accusing the app backed by prominent Republican Party donor Rebekah Mercer of failing to police violent content on its service.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't give them ideas!
Re: (Score:2)
If the app must have and enforce moderation policies on user generated content
I mean you're literally asking for a concrete standard from a private entity that has no duty to provide one to you. The often brought up Section 230 basically extends the notion of Good Samaritan to digital platforms. Thus, the bar here is "did the company act in a manner that they believed to be sincerely good for the public?" It doesn't actually have to be good, bad, or indifferent just did the company honestly think it was good for everyone?
Reforming Section 230 to include "bad faith actors" has been
Re: (Score:3)
They do for Discord [theverge.com], so wish granted there.
They've never required moderation policies for websites, or for HTML 5 apps accessed through browsers. Or reviews, or payment systems. You've destroyed your own analogy.
Punch Nazis (Score:1)
We must hold no tolerance for the intolerant. These jackasses tried to overthrow our government to reverse election results while their dopehead guy was the President. Morons and traitors should be given no quarter. Very disappointing that Apple will help them to spread their disparaging messages.
Re: Punch Nazis (Score:1)
POPULAR WITH REPUBLICANS, NOT CONSERVATIVES (Score:2)
Parler is popular with Republicans, not conservatives. Come on. Basic accuracy in headlines.
Now safe (Score:2)
It is now safe, since it can't harm Biden's chances at re-election.
Mission? (Score:2)
What, exactly, is your core mission?
So More Terrorism May be Organized (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Once again, (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Once again, (Score:1)
Re:Once again, (Score:5, Informative)
That was the marketing, not the reality [techdirt.com].
In your ignorance of how it was actually operated [twitter.com].
Re: Once again, (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Happier? [mashable.com]. Or does the person who obtained the data have to be employed by one of your personally approved sources of information?
Re: Once again, (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Happier? [mashable.com]
Re: Once again, (Score:1)
Re: Once again, (Score:3)
What are you trying to prove? OK, Parler numbered posts sequentially, and people were able to 'scrape' content from the web site - there's a huge gap between that reality and your claims about how Parker removed content.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, you rejected something posted by the person who actually extracted the data because they posted it on Twitter. Now you're rejecting trade reporting that cites that very person as having extracted the data, and therefore having access to and knowledge of how Parler conducted its moderation.
Just because you don't want to
Re: (Score:2)
But there's no gap between that reality and claims that Parler (Parker? Really?) would not display content until a sufficient number of posts were approved by moderators, and that content was being hidden from view.
When you can sequentially view all the posts, you can see the posts that the
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck with that. You can't resist responding to evidence [techdirt.com] with baseless drivel in an attempt to pretend that Parler wasn't all about suppressing opinions that your and yours would prefer not to see.
Re: Once again, (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, freedom of speech, but only for speech that you value. Which is exactly what Facebook, Twitter et al. are already doing. So what's the difference that you're touting?
Go read up on the Mercers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Do you think you might be going a bit far by calling Parler and the people who run it "White Supremacists"?
Seriously. You might not like that they are conservative, but what makes them White Supremacists?
Rebekah Mercer co-founded and is bank rolling Parler.
Rebekah Mercer (Mercer family) owns Breitbart. Breitbart is aligned with the alt-right and white nationalists. Have you seen the garbage (i.e. hate) they (Breitbart / the alt-right / white nationalists) spout?
Re: (Score:2)
Breitbart sure has weird staff demographics for an outlet aligned with the 'alt-right' and white supremacists!
Breitbart was founded by two Jews, not typically an ethnicity very popular with the far right, and employs Jews. Their staff seems to be oddly diverse in both gender and ethnicity - more so than at The Huffington Post (largely white women). Rather than sling accusations, dwelling on the negative, can't we instead be happy that the supposed far right has embraced diversity and inclusion? Can we not b
Re: (Score:3)
Except I'm pretty sure that Parler still isn't allowed on the Play Store. However, since Android allows sideloading apps Google doesn't approve of, Parler is able to offer an Android version of their app for download and Google can't really do anything about it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
And no, it's not a Free Speech thing.
No. It is by 100% definition a "free speech" thing. What it's not is a first amendment thing. People often get them confused. Free speech is a principle, effectively let people say what they want. If you censor people you are not supporting free speech. However, you are not violating the First unless you are a government entity doing so.
And don't get me wrong, free speech principles are not inviolate. I'm just saying that this is a "free speech thing".
Re: (Score:1)
Everything Parler is accused of, Facebook and Twitter have also done.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: Once again, (Score:5, Insightful)
Not all conservatives are white supremacists but all white supremacists are conservative.
Re: (Score:3)
It's like the old Simpsons joke not racist but number one with racists.
Re: Once again, (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Which completely explains their passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, as well as the Republican's subsequent run towards the southern strategy and "voting reform."
Things have changed significantly since the 1950s, boomer. Try getting up to date. Republicans embraced the the rhetoric of the welfare queen, "ebonics," voter suppression, "voting reform," and the America First Caucus [vanityfair.com].
Re: Once again, (Score:1)
Why do liberals always assume malice in their perceived enemies? That smacks of puritanical cultism.
Re: (Score:3)
You first. Southern Strategy [history.com]. Voter suppression [publicintegrity.org]. The last 50 years.
Your puny little Ben Shapiro link doesn't overcome 50 years of personal experience.
Re: (Score:1)
Regarding voter suppression, your article confuses current voter ID legislation with long-past voter suppression (which was run by democrats by your own admission several comments above). Additionally, voter ID laws are rational and overwhelmingly popular across ages and races: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news [msn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That's an interesting way to characterize admissions by members of the Republican party and their strategists. [thenation.com]. By which I mean, outright denial of reality.
Voter ID, "inactive" voter purges, and the
Re: (Score:1)
You didn't answer my statements on voter ID, so let's boil it down: is it good or bad to ask for voter ID before voting? That's a good foundation for future conversation.
I'm a little confused by your last statement, since I've given you several sources and only one was Shapiro. Does he get under your skin that much?
Re: (Score:2)
We're talking about the southern strategy, you moron. It started when it started, not yesterday.
Statements require answers? I thought that questions required answers. I do recall pointing out that "current voter ID legislation" is only current in the sense that it's been going on for 20 years.
Re: (Score:1)
And I'll ask again: do you think voters should be required to show ID at a polling place?
Re: (Score:2)
You can say that all day long, but the facts prove you wrong [sfuhs.org]. Did you go through any ot the support that I linked? No? Didn't think so.
Where did you ask it in the first place? You asked a different question [slashdot.org] before, and simply contradicted the AP [twitter.com] in the comment before that [slashdot.org].
And no, I don't think so. If governments aren
Re: (Score:1)
Thank you for answering on the voter ID. Would you say that a $20 photo ID fee is a poll tax? In
Re: (Score:2)
Really? You can prove that they're all Democrats?
Your ability to not read is fully acknowledged.
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, 34 states and climbing think voter ID laws are both good and useful. https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_... [ballotpedia.org]
Follow-up question: if your ID was free, would you be in favor of voter ID laws?
Re: (Score:2)
Something, something, Texas lacks standing to control how other states conduct their elections, something, something, the rights of voters to have every vote count doesn't give them the right to disenfranchise other eligible voters... you'll figure it out eventually.
Yes, my state is one of those 34, and that chart doesn't me
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I knew that you had a reading comprehension problem, but asking a question right after I said that I wasn't answering any until you answered mine is an interesting choice.
Re: (Score:1)
Can I prove they are all democrats? No, I cannot prove the superset of 'all' but the only people in the article you quoted who used the term southern strategy were democrats. It's kind of like how leftists never use TDS; it's a label imposed on them. And no, I would not say buying an ID constitutes a poll tax. Neither do 34 states with voter id laws. And yeah
Re: (Score:2)
That's nice as an assertion, but you can't prove that, can you.
Mike Allen
Bob Herbert
Harry Dent
I especially want you to prove that last one, considering he was one of Nixon's political aides and one-time chairman of the South Carolina Republican Party.
Re: (Score:1)
I definitely think you need to show ID at time of voting, not just at registration. Are you sure you have to show ID to register, in every state? I don't think that's accurate.
Re: (Score:2)
Because laws never violate the constitution [supremecourt.gov]. They must be right. Without question.
Re: (Score:1)
In addition, oftentimes the supreme court carefully considers arguments and finds something to be right and good, like voter ID laws: https://www.casebriefs.com/blo... [casebriefs.com]
If you want we can unpack what you mean by "They must be right. Without question" next. To what authority do you appeal for "right"?
Re: (Score:2)
Not all liberals are white genociders but all white genociders are liberals.
And both are a small vocal minority that gets amplified by the other radical side to recruit people into their crazy shit.
Re: (Score:3)
So what? Do you think all those KKK democrats from the 60s stayed being democrats? The democrats back then were social conservatives. The social conservatives did not change, instead the parties changed from under them. Next you're going to clai that the n@zis were really socialists, following the modern far-right retcon playbook.
Re: (Score:1)
Not all conservatives are white supremacists but all white supremacists are conservative.
The Democratic party was aligned with the KKK, not the Republican.
When Anonymous Coward used the word "are" in their sentence, they meant how it is right now, not how it was 100 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Not all conservatives are white supremacists but all white supremacists are conservative.
The Democratic party was aligned with the KKK, not the Republican.
The Democratic party of old is not the same as today's Democratic party.
The old Democratic party is actually much closer to today's Republican party.
Tends to make you question why ALL the citizens, are still falling for that two-party gag.
Re: Once again, (Score:2)
Who filibustered the 1964 equal rights act?
Who wanted school segregation into the 1970s?
Who thinks People of Color are too stupid to figure out how to get ID?
Hint: not conservatives.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Once again, (Score:2)
I shared a spectrum of examples, from the sixties, seventies and THIS YEAR.
I think its fair to point out that democrats think people of color are incapable of getting ID to vote (but somehow can secure ID to cash checks, drive cars, pick up tickets at the silly call window at a baseball game, buy certain cold medicines, cigarettes and/or liquor. Somehow, of all the things I just listed, only voter ID requirements are racist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Deadly riot. Deadly (Score:5, Insightful)
One set of Riots are against unequal treatment of minority groups by the police. While the other set of Riots were an attempt to over though the Constitutional process of the American Democracy.
For some reason you and those like you, are so Stupid and/or brainwashed by fake news, and conspiracy theories that you just cannot comprehend how the like of BLM and the Capital Riot are not equivalent.
The violence from BLM were not organized attacks, and as well a huge number of people within the protest worked hard to stop the violence within the group. The Capital Riot, was targeted at the capital building, with the precise goal or attacking the Legislative Branch of government who was officially tallying the presidential results to over through the fact the Biden got both the Electoral Votes and the popular votes.
For some reason you cannot fathom that a President who was mishandling a pandemic, causing a massive number of unemployment, created problems with the global supply chain, who was impeached and never had a week where his approval rating over 50%, who had won the previous election by electoral votes, but not by the popular vote, could had lost the election. He was never popular, just his stupid base though he was doing a good job, just because he alone was saying that he was doing a good job.
You have partisan stations, guess what that is good and normal, as long as they tell the truth, and if you can collaborate the facts on an other partisan news station then you probably get a better picture. But if you are follow socal media, and just discrediting the news from Liberal Sources, as just lies. Then perhaps you are the problem, not the news.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There's the hypocrisy too. They regarded BLM as totally evil, because some of it's members smashed store windows or were marxists, but with the capitol riots the instant defense became "it was just a few bad apples, stop focusing on them!" Never mind the hypocrisy of professing a desire for law and order and supporting the police and the thin blue line, while turning around and having capitol hill mobs beating and shouting at police. The sheer amount of cognitive dissonance going on makes me wonder how m
Re: Deadly riot. Deadly (Score:2)
Enhanced Security was explicitly withheld from the US Capitol when 40,000 protesters showed up, to the point that those in charge EITHER believed that a string of bicycle racks would deter 40,000 protesters OR they wanted the line breached to use the breech against their political opponents.
We had a national day of mourning for an officer that had two strokes after the attack, because the politicians wanted to put forth the narrative that he was killed by the mob, again for political advantage.
The protester
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
While the other set of Riots were an attempt to over though the Constitutional process of the American Democracy.
That's like saying "Man attempts to bring down Russia by throwing rocks at the Kremlin"
Re: (Score:1)
One set of Riots are against unequal treatment of minority groups by the police. /quote>
Really? It is that black and white to you?
From my distant vantage point, I see a lot of parallels between BLM and MAGA.
Both are composed of ordinary people, often not so bright or educated but mean well. They are told they have suffered a great injustice, and they are too eager to believe it, not asking for proof, let alone able to asses it. Both groups contain a violent minority.
When I go looking, the evidence for systemic racism is as elusive as the evidence for a stolen election. Black men in the US are responsible for more that half of all gun homicides, but less than half of all police shooting victims. They make a greater proportion of perpetrators than they do victims. Digging into more detailed data does not provide evidence either. Yet people are willing to march, and burn and loot, justified by the media supporting their cause. Maybe it is not as stupid as Trumps minions marching on congress, but they are equally wrong and criminal. A pox on both their houses.
Re: (Score:2)
It is interesting to see how "troll" moderations are used on Slashdot, no?
Do they really believe something like "Nobody can hold honestly have views different to mine, so he must be insincere and just wants to get a reaction" ?
It seems to happen when you run up against "articles of faith" that do not require proof. Or worse, it is sacrilegious to question them.
Why are they unwilling to debate the issue, and just want to hide it?
Re: (Score:2)
One set of Riots are against unequal treatment of minority groups by the police.
Supposedly. It's a political issue, and the supposed facts are subject to dispute.
While the other set of Riots were an attempt to over though the Constitutional process of the American Democracy
Wrong. That was not the stated purpose of anybody but a tiny fringe. Most were demanding that their representatives engage in safeguarding the "Constitutional process of the American Democracy".
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I have a feeling there's a lot of other things you don't read.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Link?
Re:Both riots were unjustified (Score:5, Insightful)
In every single paragraph you have belied the fact you do not understand the arguments behind what people call "systemic racism".
1. The crime stat is just a stat but the question is "why" and the ideas behind an accusation of systemic racism look to address the disproportionality. Homicides are not the be all end all metric either. The actual two choices are 1) Environment 2)Genetic and we can fix environment so that's the idea.
2. There are far more than two possible explanations but the general issue with the police is part of larger issues in the entire Justice system. The federal investigation of the Ferguson PD showed the issue quite clearly [justice.gov] where it showed such effects as black people being pulled over and searched at double the rate of whites but were 26 percent less likely to be in possession of contraband. You can find these disproportionate effects through the entire process.
3. One incident does a systemic problem make. Nor does a few even. No more than we can malign all white folks every time there's a mass shooting. That's the "systemic" part. The laws don't need to be explicitly racist (and they actually were not that long ago) to have outcomes that negatively affect certain races.
re: Ferguson (Score:5, Informative)
I used to live about a mile outside Ferguson, so I knew that area quite well.
To be honest, the Federal investigation of the goings-on there doesn't really reflect the reality of daily life out there. People keep railing against "racial profiling", but they're also the first to complain when the police take a long time to respond to a call for help, or when they don't seem to be making any progress on a crime investigation. There's only so much manpower to devote to all of it, and your cop or detective on the street is typically just trying to use his/her time as efficiently as possible. That means yeah, you DO "profile" when you're just going by your own personal experience policing the area over the years.
The neighborhood I lived in was so predominately African-American in demographics, I think white people like myself made up no more than 9% of the total population when I was there. And I lived in an unincorporated area right outside Ferguson and other municipalities around it. In the greater St. Louis, Missouri area, the "county" is made up of nearly 100 municipalities like Ferguson, plus the unincorporated areas around them. That means many of them are working with really limited budgets for emergency services AND it means you have a LOT of people traveling through who aren't technically residents but live so close by, you can find them in your community on a daily basis.
If the police were doing anything BUT pulling over blacks at a rate of at LEAST double the rate they pulled over whites out there, I'd say something was really wrong! If Ferguson P.D. was only pulling them over at a 2 to 1 ratio, that tells me they were already targeting whites driving through as automatically suspicious! There's FAR less than 50% whites living there!
Why were blacks 26% less likely to be in possession of contraband? Well, let's face it. There's a higher than average probability that a white dude driving around or parked and sitting in his car in Ferguson was there for a drug deal. Otherwise? They were usually only visiting one small part of Ferguson near their train station. (They had a little ice cream place called The Whistle Stop and a small railroad museum right there, near the outskirts of the town - in the part adjacent to the college campus for UMSL. That's also where they placed their local library.)
Re: Both riots were unjustified (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe you should read those crime facts in more detail. Cause then you will see that for equivalent level of crime & run in with the police, blacks receive sentences at 6x the rate of whites. Facts are funny when you read only half of them.
Re: Both riots were unjustified (Score:4, Interesting)
You are missing the point. To over simplify, if 18 people had a run in with the police for burglary and they were all white or black. Stats say it's 12 whites and 6 blacks.
The problem is that ONE white person would go to jail and THREE blacks would. That's why people say the system is racial. Similar crimes, run in with justice, but different outcome.
Metrics on percent of criminals in ethnic population or overall population doesn't highlight the problems we have in our system. They are just excuses to make our society feel better about itself in ignoring them.
Re: (Score:2)
When people have huge issues with racism, it's rarely about the actual crimes or murders. It's about what happens to the perpetrators. Assuming the evidence pans out and shows that he killed him, the man who killed the 4 year old deserves to rot in a cell for the rest of his life. His motives etc... I don't care about, he deserves to be in jail.
Now when we talk cases where a white person kills a black person, At least for me I too, don't give a rats ass of why the murder itself happened. Just like in the
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The fake progressive flock are the ones giving them money. Anybody who sees through the propaganda is never going to give them a dime.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You're not wrong. Those conspiratards on the 6th were just basic rabble, vermin who largely didn't have any kind of real plan but to prop up "muh guy Trump!".
The deaths were on their own "side". There was some violence and the ones directly responsible should be arrested and charged. There were a small number who probably did plan to do more and if they can be convicted of conspiracy charges they should be.
All that said, the media is way, way overplaying it. At this point it's just silly. We get it, a bunch
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A mob stormed the capitol after breaking windows and doors and pushing past the police, and you think it is actually possible for the media to overplay that story? That's the biggest thing to happen in the capitol since the Brits burned it!
Re: (Score:2)
How quickly we forget history. It's fair to say that every 4-8 years, there's contention. When Trump was elected. When Obama was elected. When Bush was elected.
What about the time protestors against the IMF opened fire on REGULAR ARMY (3rd US Infantry Regiment - The Old Guard) in Washington, when the Old Guard was called out to support the Capitol police? I was there. My roommate got shot. In his flak vest. He was bruised but ok. We killed the protestor that shot at us. With a baton because we we
Re: (Score:1)
It was an angry mob which was fully capable of doing everything they were chanting they wanted to do which was insurrection. If you watched other coups and similar events in world history you'd not think it was nothing. It wasn't far from those; except it was almost entirely powered by retards. Only a few had brains enough to play stupid and/or cowardly enough lack follow thru (Trump included.)
This is why I expected the whole thing to play out like it did except that I thought it would have been more viol
Re: Deadly riot. Deadly (Score:2)
There was one shooting at the capitol, an unarmed woman.
The "armed insurrectionists" had, at latest count, exactly one semiautomatic pistol.
No, they literally could not overthrow the government.
Re: Deadly riot. Deadly (Score:1)
It wasn't a riot at all, far from it. It was a mostly peaceful protest during which the Capitol was briefly occupied by Americans exercising their right to protest. Don't believe the media.
Re:Deadly riot. Deadly (Score:5, Insightful)
A rapid series of rabid replies suggests organized trolling trying to poison the discussion.
Re: (Score:1)
It's probably more that Twitter can do whatever they want and Apple must go along with it, since Apple and Twitter have a symbiotic existence, relying on each other as they both prey on trendy-folk and their wannabes.
Re:Worse on Twitter but they didn’t ban (Score:5, Insightful)
They have a clear agenda against the Parker app and the notion that conservatives use the site. There was much more violence organized on Twitter in relation to the January 6 event, yet Twitter was not targeted.
I'm not sure if that claim is true, but even if it is that's not really meaningful.
It's kinda like saying New York had a bigger homicide problem in 2017 than St. Louis because it had more murders, even though St. Louis had about 20x the homicide rate [wikipedia.org].
Twitter is a massive social network that has been struggling with how to allow free speech without being overrun by ring wing extremism.
Parler is a tiny social network that was founded for and by right wing extremists in order to promote their cause.
The fact that Parler was banned and not Twitter is both expected and proper.
Re: (Score:1)
The fact that Parler was banned and not Twitter is both expected and proper.
You know what the difference is between a conservative riot and a liberal riot? Absolutely nothing, when citizens wake up to the sober reality that a riot destroyed their town last night.
Twitter did essentially nothing to condone any violence brought forth and even organized on their platforms from other activist groups, so don't sit here and try and paint Twitter with the Brush of Purity. Ain't that simple when you let politics and personal opinion, craft corporate policy.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure if that claim is true, but even if it is that's not really meaningful.
It's kinda like saying New York had a bigger homicide problem in 2017 than St. Louis because it had more murders, even though St. Louis had about 20x the homicide rate [wikipedia.org]
The only homicide at the capitol "riot" was the unarmed protester shot by police.
Re:Worse on Twitter but they didn’t ban (Score:5, Insightful)
It's obvious that lot of people who talk about Parler have not visited the site, ever. You really have to go and find the crazies on Parler
LOL. Oh man you need to get back on your meds. A social network founded as a refuge for crazy people not welcome on other social networks and you claim you have to "find the crazies"? Is that like saying you need to go to Brooklyn and "find black people"?
I've been to Parler, briefly. I was greeted by crazies at the door. I gave it a week and then I was out. If you can't find the crazies in the nuthouse, maybe you're actually one of the patients.
Re: (Score:2)
but I would actually say Twitter probably had a higher percentage or total people advocating for violence.
I'm sure you would say that, in fact you just did. Thing is, simply saying stuff because you feel in your heart that it is true doesn't make it true.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL.
A hack lawyer known as Lin Wood called for the execution of Mike Pence on the platform. You know, Trump's personal lawyer. The one not in prison.
Just to make sure you got that: The president's lawyer called for the execution of Vice President Mike Pence for completing his Constitutionally required duties on Parler.
Not sure how much more high profile you can get for that. I'll
Re:Worse on Twitter but they didn’t ban (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably because facebook has policies against violence/doxxing and actually removed content. Parler didn't do any of that and was warned by Amazon months ahead of January 6th. https://arstechnica.com/tech-p... [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:1)