But one could argue (and I'm not arguing that it's the case here), one could have different rules around what's allowed versus Twitter, and it could be a more open forum, but still censored (trolls, deaths threats, "fk you" posts).
I'd be content enough if they were upfront and said this is a place for "Conservative opinions only" rather than "free speech". I'd even agree that's their right and that they might get more open and productive discussion that way at least in some cases. But it's just not free speech.
I think that's what frustrates me about this: it's the hypocrisy.
I actually hold a few Conservative opinions myself. But i wouldn't ban people from disagreeing with me AND claim to support free speech...
Each social media site imposes its own filter bubble.
If you combine together a bunch of social media sites for consumption, you hit more different bubbles, and thus get more variety in the speach.
Adding new sites with different rulesets then makes freer speach on the whole, even though each platform is not very free on its own
Would you be in favour of banning people supporting ISIS, child molestors or the Nazis? Because from a conservative perspective, the rationales of one might apply to the other and so many nominally free speech environments ban support for those groups.
If someone is running a free speech platform, people should be able to advocate for all those things. Don't mistake me for a hypocrite who decrys censorship only of things I don't want censored. I'm not. People should actively discuss and advocate for positions they hold no matter the position. That's free speech. There are few limits (openly inciting violence, plotting crimes1, copyright etc)
If a platform or audience doesn't like that, they can drop free speech and become a safe space. That's their business. But they shouldn't censor speech and claim they are for free speech. That seems to be what is happening here.
Fyi, I haven't kept up on antifa or the events around them. But my position is that looting is wrong. At the same time, I'm sure they are right about at least something. That's a pretty safe, reasonable position right? Not on Parler. On Parlar that position is banned. And by banning my comment, you are banned from correcting me. How is that a positive for you or me or any other reasonable person? It only seems a positive for those who are too weak to bear hearing such simple positions. And even they are trading wisdom in the long term for comfort in the short...
Sorry. I feel quite strongly about censorship. It's a foolish idea we should have dropped back when we still had Kings and lived in mud huts.
https://www.cato.org/blog/twitter-alternative-they-can-keep-...
They also banned fake accounts pretending to be well known people and accounts engaged in illegal activity (death threats etc). I'm fine with that personally, I don't expect them to operate a totally "free" speech service and somehow weather all the lawsuits that brings.
I think this is a nice case study in how free speech inevitably conflicts with keeping majority opinions happy. The fact that they folded on freedom to get/keep people with such thin skin so sort of tells you what their business model really is imho.
Cest la vie.