Also a screenshot doesn't mean anything. I am sure you can take millions of screenshots of people saying bad things on facebook. It doesn't mean that the platform is not moderated, just that the moderation didn't catch those specific examples. If we apply that standard, twitter and facebook must be closed immediately, no remedy.

That would be wonderful!

You should check r/ParlerWatch, plenty of screenshots without account names blurred so you can go verify yourself that the DC Capitol raid was planned months in advance and violence was in the plan. They're currently planning a round 2 and 3 for the 17th and the inauguration. From what I've seen it's not being removed. Most posts are not from unknown low follower accounts.

I don’t get how you can cry for free speech and ban anyone on the app who doesn’t follow the party line. There is no arguing or debating with these people.

I got banned from the Donald subreddit for saying the aclu does a lot of good things. It wasn’t spam. It wasn’t even controversial.

Congrats, you've discovered doublethink. As someone who values rationality, it truly is maddening to witness. But extremists don't use words like we use words.

Doublethink is more common with extremists regardless of bent, but what we are seeing is doublethink and eager consumption of propaganda, along with gaslighting the other side and accusing them of exactly the same. It is toxic and wears you down.

Banning people who are calling for blowing up the capitol and hanging various politicians from the walls of the capitol building is not banning free speech, it's banning threats and treason. There's a huge difference. No one is banning a person for cursing a politician, they're banning threats of bodily harm of journalists, public figures, etc. Parler needs to moderate that garbage and they aren't. AWS shouldn't have to host that stuff in the name of free speech.

I got banned there in 2016 when someone said the left was being hypocritical for criticizing Trump’s call to make flag burning illegal but ignoring that Clinton had authored a bill to criminalize flag burning when she was a Senator.

My offense? I looked up the bill, which did indeed criminalize some flag burning and was indeed authored by her, and posted that in a comment there, along with the official bill summary and a link to the full bill.

I got banned from /r/conservative for agreeing with Ronald Reagan and the first President Bush on some issues, favoring a market based approach over regulation. I did not point explicitly mention Reagan or Bush, and the moderators nailed me for these far left opinions!

Do you have links to any of these posts?

If everything was being planned so openly why was the security understaffed?

That is a very good question. Many people would like to know.

I miss 5-6 years ago when "fake news" wasn't a thing and that term didn't exist in the mainstream conversation.

Are you suggesting "fake news" doesn't exist? That people shouldn't be skeptical of information regardless if it comes from the mainstream media?

Perhaps OP means that the term itself is confusing and emotionally laden. It was popularized by liars baselessly accusing the mainstream media that their stories were made up.

Does "fake news" refer to news stories that are complete made up? Contain mistakes? Or that are true but that you simply don't like? Or does "fake news" refer to the act of baselessly accusing a reasonably researched story that in fact is probably accurate?

One of Trump's greatest successes has been to co-opt the term away from it's first popularized meaning: fabricated articles created (e.g. by a teenager in Macedonia) for the primary purpose of capturing views and add clicks.

Ignoring whether Trump was abusing the term "fake news" or calling out something no one has before, it's kind of amazing how that term has taken off.

I'm not in the US and people are incorporating that term in their everyday language.

Any institution small or large is capable of fake news or lying by omission. Many of the large institutions are at the will of their corporate sponsors or the political leaning of their consumers/subscribers. The bottom line is all that matters.

Actually I know I do when I say it. Mainstream news is fine if you avoid the opinion stuff. Just approach it looking for details and facts and weed out the opinion. Trump ruined "fake news" as a descriptor by claiming that all news other than news which supports him was "fake news"

Sorry, there is always fake news in the world until we have a journalism uprising and awakening.

I meant that it was exceptionally rare to call anything fake news until some evidence was provided. That trust in journalism has been systematically eroded by President Trump and his party.

Rather than calling something fake news, you could sign up for a parker account yourself and have a browser of the content present there to make your own opinion. Calling something fake news is the equivalent of acusing everyone who disagrees with you an alt right scum.

I did not call it fake news. I asked if what you saw was legit or fake news. I was expecting your answer would be “yes I looked into it” or “no I’m not sure”

I’ve just seen so many online lies I don’t trust anything any more. I am not accusing you of anything.

That's quite an extraordinary claim, do you have anything to back that up?

Yes, personally knowing quite a few such people. They're all on made-up "disability"

I don’t disagree with your above claim of people trying to get a rise out of others with inflammatory speech online. I have seen it too but... it sounds like the rest of your argument is very politically motivated (and anecdotal).

Parler does have the TOS that you speak of, but the Parler CEO also says that Parler is “just a neutral town square that just adheres to the law” and leaves moderation to volunteers and takes no responsibility for what’s posted.

In other words, the TOS is effectively useless.