![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
![]() | This
edit request to
Parler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Was just going to add a link to Rebekah Mercer's wikipedia page since there is no link in the Founder(s) section Justinmoore2886 ( talk) 03:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Is this reliable for this page/topic? IHateAccounts ( talk) 05:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Parler remained the most downloaded app in the United States for five days in early November.That can be removed if anyone's uncomfortable with the sourcing, or we can try to find another source to replace/augment the Vice one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
pythonegg.com $15.95
Starting a discussion here on the topic of Twozerooz's addition to the lead, which (with my copyedits) reads:
Beginning in June 2020, some users reported being banned from Parler for espousing left-wing viewpoints. [1]
I'm not sure this is really leadworthy. It is supported by sourcing, and there is some discussion of the topic already in the article body at Parler#Content and moderation. However, in my view, the weight of discussion of this subject in the sourcing is somewhat lighter than that given to the other topics in the lead. It's also almost entirely based on users self-reporting being banned via tweet/etc. That said, there are multiple sources on it, so I figured I'd start a discussion here.
For the convenience of editors joining this discussion who wish to evaluate the sourcing, the existing coverage of this in the article is primarily based on these sources:
GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree that it is not leadworthy. The articles rely heavily on anonymous anecdotes, and even then there is no indication that users were banned for their political viewpoints. The Daily Dot article for example mentions that people were banned for creating fake accounts and spamming; nothing about their stances on issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobshack ( talk • contribs) 07:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC) — Jobshack ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Some of the sources are so so and even outright not RS such as Newsweek. If the question here is if it is lead worthy, I would have to say probably not. PackMecEng ( talk) 19:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Any of these used? https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/conservatives-flock-free-speech-social-media-app-which-has-started-n1232844 https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/nov/13/parler-conservative-social-network-free-speech . Slatersteven ( talk) 11:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
But as with every other platform on the internet, Parler's free speech stance goes only so far. The platform has been banning many people who joined and trolled conservativesfrom the first;
Leftists and liberals say they are already being banned from the app for content the conservative, free-speech-loving user base disagrees with.from the second. They don't specifically say they were banned for breaking rules; they do note that Parler has the right to ban anyone for any reason (just like any website), but the key point that all these sources note is that these show that, contrary to its press-speak about free speech, the site actually has fairly strict censorship policies, even relative to other major social media sites, and that it seems like they are applying these in a disproportionately politicized fashion. -- Aquillion ( talk) 06:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
References
Just noting that I have changed my mind around this being removed from the lead. I'm going to remove the {{ discuss}} tag, since discussion here has mostly dropped off and there seems to be no strong consensus for removal. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Anyone who's actually gone on the site knows it's nonsense. If something got deleted or they got booted it wasn't simply over espousing leftist notions, I guarantee there's more to the story they're not telling you - and the "reliable sources" I've looked at are light on substantiation - seems to be a bunch of people saying "I got banned!". Free speech doesn't mean anything goes. They have guidelines of course but they're common sense - unlike Twitter they *do not* censor people merely over ideology. You want to expound on why you think Carl Marx's ideas were golden even if all your points are utter nonsense factually? No problem. You think AOC is the genius of our times? Have at it. You think Hillary Clinton is a shoe-in for sainthood - expound away. On the other hand, spamming "F**k Trump!!" 50 times in a row, probably going to get deleted. Which will likely inspire shrieking about the "Alt-Right echo chamber!!" Docsavage20 ( talk) 10:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
My recommendation (apologies if this was already suggested and I missed it) - move the biased/controversial portions of Parlers description to a subheading called "Political Controversy" (or something similar). Subheadings like this could then also be added to the FB and Twitter pages. I really think this approach would offer some much needed consistency and add credibility to Wikipedia as a whole. The current differences between how the lead ins are written for FB, Twitter, and Parler are considerable. Stick2Fax ( talk) 14:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
This might be a useful source:
XOR'easter ( talk) 18:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
... Well, that's going to need an update.
On social media sites requested by the far-right, such as Gab and Parler, directions on which streets to take to avoid the police and which tools to bring to help pry open doors were exchanged in comments. At least a dozen people posted about carrying guns into the halls of Congress.
XOR'easter ( talk) 22:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
You should update the pronunciation, as well to be pɑːrleɪ PAR-Lay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:CFC0:3D:65B6:8433:6DF2:4B29 ( talk) 19:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
https://www.axios.com/capitol-mob-parler-google-ban-826d808d-3e06-4468-a7c6-6157557818b3.html
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/google-pulls-parler-from-play-store-for-fostering-calls-to-violence/ar-BB1cB6gV TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 01:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Is the app on F-droid ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.80.224.229 ( talk) 22:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
https://slate.com/technology/2021/01/parler-google-apple-amazon-aws-okta.html TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 16:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
From the first sentence, this page contains so much bias to the point where it's disgusting. I recommend that this page be extended protected so that unbiased moderators can fix the mess. In no way or form does this article follow the NPOV guidelines set by Wikipedia. NorfolkIsland123 ( talk) 23:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree. This was supposed to be an article about a tech platform, but what users get is an article about politics. No other social media platform is described politically in Wikipedia, but Parler and Gab. Can you picture how ridiculous it would be if a right-wing activist changed the entry paragraph of Twitter's article to something like: "Twitter is a microblogging famous for banning people they don't agree upon, that once banned the president of the United States while giving voice to Iran's dictator Khamenei'. As ridiculous as it sounds, that's exactly how this article is being handled. It's obvious that the political debate should be in a section of the article, not in the definition. It's obvious that the users that wrote this article are more interested in defaming the platform than to write an encyclopedia article. This kind of bias diminishes Wikipedia's purpose as a whole.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.90.245.161 ( talk • contribs) — 95.90.245.161 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The Wikipedia policy on
neutral point of view requires that we represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
Can you please explain whether a) you feel that there are other significant views published by reliable sources that present a different viewpoint that needs to be represented in this page, or b) the article does not represent the current sources that are being used? If a), please provide links to the reliable sources that you have found, ensuring they meet
the policy on reliable sourcing. If you are unsure,
WP:RSP contains a long list of commonly-suggested sources along with the general consensus among the Wikipedia editing community on whether or not they are considered reliable.
GorillaWarfare
(talk)
03:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Read wp:or and wp:v before you answer. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
considering CEO John Matze doesnt have his own article, I feel like this page should at least contain some biographical info on him, especially with the enormous attention Parler is getting recently. jonas ( talk) 02:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Amazon is booting Parler. Link for consumption.-- Jorm ( talk) 02:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
GW, it looks from the Register article that I linked further down, that Parler was using 100s of servers. Getting a site that size running at a new host is sure to be a hassle. Lots of data to migrate and likely plenty of issues to work out getting the new stuff running even if their software setup is super clean, which nobody's is ;). That they were using that much hardware with no apparent revenue makes their financing an even more interesting question than it already was. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A ( talk) 10:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Noted repeatedly Wikipietime ( talk) 03:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with "Further reading" sections in principle, of course, but the only entry in the one here is already used as a reference (currently #38), so it's not really "further". XOR'easter ( talk) 14:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I
reverted the insertion of It is based in Henderson, Nevada, United States
as the second sentence of the introduction. To my eye, that is sidebar material, not second-sentene-of-lede content. What difference would it make if it were Wilmington, Delaware instead of Henderson, Nevada? How much of the media coverage has emphasized Henderson, Nevada instead of how easy it is to find QAnon content there? Likewise, the intro should summarize the main text, but the main text only mentions the HQ location once, versus the lengthy discussion of other things. It seems to me that foregrounding the HQ location would be like putting, say, the
CU Denver computer-science department into the second sentence of the article. I've been
re-reverted in turn, so I'm opening a discussion here (though I'd have thought that
the discussion should have happened before the content was restored, not after). We've had plenty of debates about the lede on this Talk page, and the sentiment has been that what gets presented in the first couple lines is important. Thoughts?
XOR'easter (
talk)
14:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Parler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
As an educator with a masters degree in information services, I must point out the following, if not already noted. Parler is described in a negative and opinionated manner and going a step further in linking it to current unlawful events while Twitter is written in purely historical text with no links to violent events (like BLM protests). Quite peculiar. Thank you for reading below, comparing and changing this biased information to reflect a much more appropriate and comparative view of both. The Parler entry is currently offensive and full of hate. (Although I am sure it was not intentional in any way.)
Twitter description:
Twitter is an American microblogging and social networking service on which users post and interact with messages known as "tweets". Registered users can post, like and retweet tweets, but unregistered users can only read them. Users access Twitter through its website interface, through Short Message Service (SMS) or its mobile-device application software ("app").[13] Twitter, Inc. is based in San Francisco, California, and has more than 25 offices around the world.[14] Tweets were originally restricted to 140 characters, but was doubled to 280 for non-CJK languages in November 2017.[15] Audio and video tweets remain limited to 140 seconds for most accounts.
99.136.226.131 (
talk)
04:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Parler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the mention of what content is posted on there because there is no source to back that up. Anyone can post anything and therefore these comments are partisan and do not belong on an academic outlet such as wikipedia. 45.59.40.221 ( talk) 16:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure if we should do it. They could find a new host. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nar 2608 ( talk • contribs) 16:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Parler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
To assert that Parler is a "right wing, etc. " platform is a full blown lie. This is an opinion from a very specific biased perspective, not a fact. Wikipedia needs immediately to correct the opening statement on Parler. 2601:640:C601:E360:1961:2D4D:13A8:FA6B ( talk) 21:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
So Parler went offline on January 11 (EST) at Midnight. So it was the 11th for half the country and the 10th for half the country. Let's just get the discussion started and over with so we can have a consensus for which date to use.
{Since I do not know of any Wiki policies that actually impact this, I think a consensus will be a majority vote for this. Could be wrong though}
Parler apparently claims [10] that Rob Monster's company (that also hosts Gab) will be hosting Parler going forward. I'll leave it to the big brains here to decide when and how to report/source this if it's used in the article. It should also go in the Rob Monster biography once it's considered accurate and documented. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A ( talk) 02:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Parler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add libertarian, which the CEO noted she is in a recent interview. Also, remove the anti semitism sections, which seems far fetched and the reference article does not point to the site. Disclaimer777cc ( talk) 03:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Parler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Would you change from "is" to "was", because this company is likely to be (almost) out of business. 2001:4452:4AE:8A00:185E:CD99:DA35:72CA ( talk) 04:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This website is meant to bring information to people not someone's bias on the topic being searched. This site I used to use alot but it turns in to a biased views on history and other topics like here on the Parler site. You know people have posted far-right content on twitter but would never put that on twitter's wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:482:2:5CF0:113C:C592:E95D:6EFF ( talk) 05:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
This person is correct. There is yoo much liberal bias in the editorial content on WP. Havequick99 ( talk) 14:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Parler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The description of this website is extremely opinionated and bias. It makes Parler seem like a right-wing extremist social media organization when it is actually a free-speech platform that welcomes anyone to speak freely and not be censored. Not supporting extreme censorship should not be labeled "right-wing" as this kind of censorship should be unacceptable to all people of every party. The description on wiki does not accurately portray Parler and it should be rewritten with less bias and contempt towards anything related towards conservitism. 2601:200:4:29BE:41D:F9D0:7E3F:6343 ( talk) 19:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Article seems kind of slanted by stating that Parler is full of trump supporters and right wing extremists. Anyone can join any time they want. It's not like there's a political questionnaire that you have to pass before joining. Conservatives are feeling pushed there by being silenced on twitter and Facebook. Heyman1104 ( talk) 19:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC) — Heyman1104 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
If you look at the Alexa page about Parler, the sites its visitors frequent most are conservative ones like the Daily Caller. There are also reports of Parler having booted off left-wing users. [11] It might be worth citing this in the article.
Following the recent shutdown of Voat, someone on Hacker News made an insightful and sad comment that could also apply to Parler:
When you add to that the background of Parler's founders and executives (see for example the wiki biography of Rebekah Mercer), it really does come across as a partisan activist site rather than a neutral one, despite its protestations otherwise. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A ( talk) 21:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
There are two different parts of the article about the data exfiltration that need harmonization.
From the === 2021 === section:
From the === Security === section:
-- Fuzheado | Talk 20:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
Parler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Parler protects your privacy and it allows freedom of speech not violence and AWS(Amazon Web Services) broke their contract with them cause they where supposed to give 30 day notice before they take down any thing instead they gave 30hours since Parler was growing and becoming a competitor with tweeter they broke their contract thus resulting in AWS getting sewed by Parler. side note it has a lot of conservatives users cause tweeter banned President Trump and any conservatives who think they don't have enough ground to do that. -Tom W. Lemke BlazingFox05 ( talk) 22:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
[13] describes reactions to the AWS shutdown. It quotes an ACLU lawyer:
Glenn Greenwald cited that quote in particular. [14]
This should be in the article in some form, I think. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A ( talk) 22:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
im an independent but this article does seem pretty biased skewed left — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Leothenormal (
talk •
contribs)
15:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC) —
Leothenormal (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
Regarding the recent addition of "On December 23, President Donald Trump vetoed the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 in part because it did not repeal Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which shields internet companies from being liable for what is posted on their websites by third parties." to this article by Enthusiast01: in my opinion this feels misplaced. While I'm sure it would be relevant to William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 and Section 230, there is no statement in-text (or in the provided sources) about how this applies to Parler, nor do I think we should add one. There is also no mention of the veto override, which is an important detail.
It doesn't make sense to write about this veto on all of the articles of web companies that could potentially be affected by a Section 230 repeal; there are thousands of them. Any content about Section 230 that is directly relevant to Parler, for example perhaps the very unusual choice for Parler to issue a statement in support of repealing 230, could be added. Anything else should be saved for the articles that go into proper detail on the legislation, in my opinion.
What do you think? GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
And, by the way - there is plenty of mention of non Parler sites in the same section, without objection being raised.? GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I think this is worth some thought and research. I will see what I can do, though I can't spend much time on this stuff. Someone on Hacker News brought it up about a week ago too. Parler's shutdown is one of a cluster of events that resemble each other enough to be related. If we've got a reasonable source calling out the similarity, we should use it. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A ( talk) 10:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
In the frenzy of trying to not be supressed, Parler users are scrambling and making hasty choices about life-boats to grab on to.
The results point to deeper radicalization
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/01/on-telegram-white-nationalists-are-trying-to-radicalize-those-fleeing-parler/ TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 21:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
There is a published argument in the other direction that I'll try to find. Basically it says pushing lunatics to the fringes is better than having them in the mainstream. There is another one that said if we just had plain old free speech competing on its merits things would be fine, but instead we have engagement-boosting algorithms focusing more attention on anger and conflict, which in turn generates more anger and conflict, etc. In other words the Parler phenomenon results from the ad-funded internet and social media algorithmic feeds, and the answer is to break up Facebook, Google, etc. I can probably find some RS-ish publications that say things like this, though they may be too old to mention Parler specifically. But it's an area of thought whose existence we should note if we can. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A ( talk) 10:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether this might be useful, or if so where, but it seems worth posting here to see if anyone else has thoughts:
XOR'easter ( talk) 23:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Another news item in the "maybe useful" category:
XOR'easter ( talk) 03:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I saw a forum comment suggesting that Parler's ID requirements and other aspects of its TOS were geared towards a world without Section 230. I thought that was interesting. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A ( talk) 06:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
It's offline and being reported the CEO is unsure if they will ever be able to get back up online now. I'd say irs safe to say its dead Sneakycrown ( talk) 23:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
" 'This case is not about suppressing speech or stifling viewpoints. It is not about a conspiracy to restrain trade,' Amazon's attorneys wrote in a filing late Tuesday. 'Instead, this case is about Parler’s demonstrated unwillingness and inability to remove from the servers of Amazon Web Services (AWS) content that threatens the public safety, such as by inciting and planning the rape, torture, and assassination of named public officials and private citizens.' " Source: USA Today -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
but extended to lawful speech that was found objectionable as wellWhich is the source for this bit? GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
We would never report that Parler demonstrated unwillingness and inability to remove from the servers of Amazon Web Services content that threatens the public safety, such as by inciting and planning the rape, torture, and assassination of named public officials and private citizens. that would violate our basic principles. However, we would and should report that Amazon said that Parler demonstrated unwillingness and inability to remove from the servers of Amazon Web Services content that threatens the public safety, such as by inciting and planning the rape, torture, and assassination of named public officials and private citizens. Not reporting the reliably sourced reasons Amazon gave would violate our basic principles. If there are any reliable secondary sources that say that Amazon was wrong and that Parler actually did demonstrate unwillingness and ability etc. We should report that as well. Do you know of any reliable source that said that? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
It's certainly observable that conservative outlets like Fox News are furious over this situation. Fox is mostly TV though. I don't know if their web outlets have anything we can cite. Don't forget that the other side has its own conflicts of interest, e.g. the WaPo is owned by Jeff Bezos. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A ( talk) 11:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Lets wait for the courts to decide which sides arguments are correct. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I can't find any, yet. Charles Juvon ( talk) 19:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean about Streisand effect. Parler's shutdown hasn't attracted any new Parler users so far, since Parler is offline. If it comes back, it will probably get an at least temporary surge of users, and we can report that once there is sourcing. I put a link further up about other sites in the conservative social space that are maybe getting new users from Parler's current unavailability. There has been stuff on TV about Donald Trump himself wanting to start a site of some kind, once he leaves the WH. An impeachment conviction/martyrdom barring him from running for POTUS again may turn out to work to his advantage, if he wants to become a social media baron. It's a natural progression from reality TV, heh. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A ( talk) 23:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Parler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2601:882:180:AD50:C895:5078:2492:DCF1 ( talk) 02:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
remove 'anti-semitism' because Parler's community standards are against anti-semitic posts, therefore Parler cannot be anti-semitic if they are against anti-semitic posts.
![]() | This
edit request to
Parler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Parler (/ˈpɑːrlər/) is an American alt-tech microblogging and social networking service. Parler has a significant user base of Donald Trump supporters and conservatives..[8][9][10][11] Posts on the service often contain right wing content,[16] strong family values,[23] and ways to combat terror organizations such as black lives matter or AntiFA.[27] Journalists have described Parler as an alternative to Twitter and a place where people can speak freely.[8][11][28] Stonks43 ( talk) 19:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC) — Stonks43 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
![]() | This
edit request to
Parler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
As of the morning of the 18th Jan, the Parler website is back online in a limited way and not defunct, as stated. Might be worth changing to label as 'defunct' is factually incorrect. Robbyyy ( talk) 00:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Parler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Free speech request to strike (remove) the opening paragraph. Remove unsubstantiated biased references to avoid litigious liability on the part of wikipedia. Endlesspath ( talk) 16:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
[30] I think this is worth using in the article. It mentions that AWS is supposed to give clients 30 days notice before booting them for TOS breaches. I wonder if Parler got such a notice. I did see an article about prior discussions between Amazon and Parler, that might already be in the article or here on the talk page. If not, I can try to find it again. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A ( talk) 23:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
AWS can even terminate or suspend its agreement with a customer immediately under certain circumstances as it did in 2010 with Wikileaks, pointing to violations of AWS’ terms of service. [...] Parler could have protected itself more. Large AWS customers can sign up for more extensive agreements, which allow more customers time to get into compliance if they wind up breaking rules. Gartner analyst Lydia Leong spelled out this difference in a blog post: “Thirty days is a common timeframe specified as a cure period in contracts (and is the cure period in the AWS standard Enterprise Agreement), but cloud provider click-through agreements (such as the AWS Customer Agreement) do not normally have a cure period, allowing immediate action to be taken at the provider’s discretion,” she wrote.XOR'easter ( talk) 00:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
that AWS failed to provide notice to Parler that Parler was in breach, and to give Parler 30 days to cure, as Parler claims is required per Section 7.2(b)(i). However, Parler fails to acknowledge, let alone dispute, that Section 7.2(b)(ii)—the provision immediately following—authorizes AWS to terminate the Agreement “immediately upon notice” and without providing any opportunity to cure “if [AWS has] the right to suspend under Section 6.” And Section 6 provides, in turn, that AWS may “suspend [Parler’s or its] End User’s right to access or use any portion or all of the Service Offerings immediately upon notice” for a number of reasons, including if AWS determines that Parler is “in breach of this Agreement.” In short, the CSA gives AWS the right either to suspend or to terminate, immediately upon notice, in the event Parler is in breach.(Quoted from here.) I guess it always goes to read the fine print. XOR'easter ( talk) 02:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Parler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
parler is back online: Slinkyw ( talk) 02:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
No Slinkyw ( talk) 02:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Parler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Parler (/ˈpɑːrlər/) is an American alt-tech microblogging and social networking service. Parler has a significant user base of Donald Trump supporters, conservatives, conspiracy theorists, and right-wing extremists.[8][9][10][11] Posts on the service often contain far-right content,[16] antisemitism,[23] and conspiracy theories such as QAnon JamesMartin03 ( talk) 11:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
What kind of definition of a business is this? This is closer to Nazi propaganda than a description that comes anywhere near approaching reality. Does someone have stock in Twitter here? Because you could describe Twitter with the same inflammatory rhetoric, if you were so inclined to. It's embarrassing to humanity to imagine anyone would expect another human being to accept this as any semblance of reality. This is your get real wake up call.
JamesMartin03 ( talk) 11:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Journalists have described Parler as an alternative to Twitter.
However you do not input what parlor describes itself as.
Parler's objective and goal directly from their web site as of January 19, 2021:
Now seems like the right time to remind you all — both lovers and haters — why we started this platform. We believe privacy is paramount and free speech essential, especially on social media. Our aim has always been to provide a nonpartisan public square where individuals can enjoy and exercise their rights to both.
We will resolve any challenge before us and plan to welcome all of you back soon. We will not let civil discourse perish!
Parler is an anonymous free speech platform that aims at allowing users to operate and self govern, without the big tech overlord controlling the content, they are simply a user platform.
Parler is equivalent to the earth if you compare its virtual existence to a real world counterpart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.250.230.242 ( talk) 19:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
It isn't about reprinting a companies "marketing" policy. It is as informing people of the facts. Leaving out information is the same as falsifying information. Rephrasing information and changing how it is written is also falsifying the truth.
Not telling the whole truth is the same telling a lie. You can report all day what people say about a topic, but what is the point of it when you don't include information about the topic itself.
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
64.250.230.242 (
talk)
19:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
-- Lonerganvalko ( talk) 21:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC) Wow, I have witnessed blatant bias quite a lot, but this really takes the biscuit. This article should be removed from wikipedia immediately, or editing enabled to allow for balanced updates. Reading this article, it is quite clear that its sole purpose is to influence rather than inform. Really disappointing that this has crept into wikipedia. Disallowing editing by other users is a form of censorship which should not be tolerated here. Preventing others from providing balanced content, in my view, only conveys the fear that the arm of manipulation will have a shorter reach. Lonerganvalko ( talk) 21:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
[34] I think this is worth using in the article. Former Parler users were advised to buy ham radio gear, since that was described as the only way they could communicate after now-former president Trump launched his hypothesized plans to take permanent power. This discusses some of the users' expectations prior to the WH handover. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A ( talk) 05:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
[35] Interesting article comparing Parler and the alt-right's current hosting and payments tribulations to similar ones that the porn industry faced in past years. Says that credit card payments are a bigger choke point than hosting. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A ( talk) 07:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
It's pretty hilarious how a supposedly objective and fact-based wiki cannot state at the beginning what Parler even is. It's a non-partisan social media platform that promotes free speech and that at least one of the owners is a Libertarian (the CPO Amy Peikoff). The way the information is organized and the language used is obvious it is trying to sway its image rather than risk allowing people to make their own judgements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Free Speech Babe ( talk • contribs) 18:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.Can you please explain whether a) you feel that there are other significant views published by reliable sources that present a different viewpoint that needs to be represented in this page, or b) the article does not represent the current sources that are being used? If a), please provide links to the reliable sources that you have found, ensuring they meet the policy on reliable sourcing. If you are unsure, WP:RSP contains a long list of commonly-suggested sources along with the general consensus among the Wikipedia editing community on whether or not they are considered reliable. If b), can you please be specific as to which statements do not represent the sourcing? Thanks, GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Parler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Parler is NOT full of racists and Nazis. remove the slander and stop calling conservatives names, or we will resort to calling yall communists because you are trying to shut down and defame anyone who disagrees with you. REMOVE THE SLANDER WIKIPEDIA! 2603:8081:6640:2E57:DCAF:F194:D9B3:EA63 ( talk) 21:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
[36] 67.160.203.180 ( talk) 06:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Please read wP:notaforum. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Newsweek might be trying to make Parler their beat:
XOR'easter ( talk) 19:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC) One more:
XOR'easter ( talk) 02:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
The news coverage of Parler has dropped off a lot (much like the daily page views of this article), but Newsweek has run another three items this week:
XOR'easter ( talk) 21:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
One more:
XOR'easter ( talk) 19:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Two more
None of these pieces seem to be saying anything so dramatic that I'd want another source to back them up, but none of them look like real shoe-leather journalism, either. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Three more:
Again, these may or may not be useful in the article itself, but I think it's good to keep track of the niche that Newsweek is trying to carve out for itself. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Should the URL be removed from the infobox? It no longer works, and it might be a while before they get it back up, if ever. See https://www.newsweek.com/parler-website-app-down-offline-longer-expected-ceo-john-matze-1560384 -- Guy Macon ( talk) 10:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
The website currently doesn't exist and the apps are non-functioning. Unless resurrected, it is currently dead. I think it should say "Parler *was* a social media..." Aryattack ( talk) 12:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
source: https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/11/22223335/parler-amazon-terminates-web-hosting-aws-google-apple-capitol Aryattack ( talk) 12:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
[37] I'll leave this for others but I'm sure there are secondary sources. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A ( talk) 09:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 15:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Since the link to the web page is not available it would be convenient to place a link to the last screenshot of this from the Web Archive.
https://web.archive.org/web/20210111080256/https://parler.com/
--
PatriaDeTodos (
talk)
19:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
"At least several users of the far-right social network Parler appear to be among the horde of rioters that managed to penetrate deep inside the U.S. Capitol building and into areas normally restricted to the public, according to GPS metadata linked to videos posted to the platform the day of the insurrection in Washington." Source: Gizmodo -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
There is already a little bit about this topic in the article but (like the above) it's all quite vague, so I'd support adding anything that is available. I haven't seen any revenue model for Parler yet that makes actual sense, so it comes across either as a vanity project or a deep pocket propaganda outlet, depending on your cynicism. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A ( talk) 05:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
https://gizmodo.com/parlers-suit-trying-to-force-amazon-to-host-it-again-do-1846063580 TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 11:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLq6cQ--4f90ja7xShfORhnlvnvHaG05zj RogerNiceEyes ( talk) 21:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/15/parler-telegram-chat-apps/ TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 23:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I'd appreciate if people writing this article who have info about Parler's technology and infrastructure, plus things like its traffic levels, post counts, etc., could please add the info to the article if the info's sourcing is good enough for that. If you have something that seems credible and isn't contentious, but needs further research before it's considered reliable enough for the article proper, I'd say it's ok to put it here on the talk page as a starting point for others to dig into. I know that Parler was hosted on AWS which means they were setting a nontrivial amount of money on fire just for that. I'm interested to know how much traffic it was serving (not just the user count), what software it used, etc. Thanks. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A ( talk) 08:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Guy, do you mean it was based on Wordpress *recently*? The features I saw described in the article didn't sound like Wordpress, but I never looked at Parler and I'm not that familiar with fancier Wordpress setups. This was interesting:
2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A ( talk) 09:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Per Alexa Parler was (today) the #180 site in the US and #848 in the world. The cross-engagement site list does look dominated by conservative media. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A ( talk) 09:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I find Parlers' claims to be inconsistent with their inability to put up a simple web page at parler.com. Just go to Dreamhost and point your DNS at a simple web page hosted pretty much anywhere. I can see why they would have trouble bringing up a copy of big site with many pages but pointing the A record at a simple HTML page? I could do that in my sleep.
Interesting handwaving from dreamhost, making a big deal about domain registry not being the same as content hosting: https://twitter.com/dreamhost/status/1347729331808841736 Also see:
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 11:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A ( talk) 16:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
A couple of replies to all the above:
Hope this clarifies some things! GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
https://www.lastweekinaws.com/blog/parlers-new-serverless-architecture/ TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 15:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
That article is not very convincing, though it mentions a few interesting things. EC2 VM's are just like any other VM's. One question is why they were using AWS in the first place though, if they weren't relying on special AWS features. AWS is ridiculously expensive compared to almost anything else they could use. The execs must have felt like they had money to burn, that presumably came from Mercer. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A ( talk) 10:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
[50] I don't see any sources of revenue that could fund the hosting described. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 06:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Interesting reading — not sure how solid the source is, but if the story holds up, confirmation will doubtless be coming:
Apparently, when Twilio cut their ties with Parler, user account creation and verification failed open rather than closed. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
"Security researchers" who found a glitch, exploited it and took away 70TB of a company's private client data, which they plan to release publicly....are refered to as "security researchers" in this context. That's new.
TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 22:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Site back online with an IP address 190.115.31.151 (Belize). 14:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirvanatoday ( talk • contribs)
y: "One post on Telegram includes antisemitic comments about Parler's CEO." The circle of life.... XOR'easter ( talk) 18:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
The splash page is hosted on "DDOS-GUARD CORP" in Belize [ https://ddos-guard.net/ ].
The domain registry is now with Epik [ https://www.epik.com/ ]. I suspect that Dreamhost refused to be their domain registrar.
From our article :"Epik is a domain registrar and web hosting company known for providing services to websites that host far-right, neo-Nazi, and other extremist content. It was described in 2019 by Vice as 'a safehaven for the extreme right" because of its willingness to host far-right websites that have been denied service by other Internet service providers.' "
We don't have a page on DDos Guard. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
On January 11 Parler registered its domain with Epik, a company known for hosting other far-right websites, including Gab. Epik says Parler has not made contact regarding hosting. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
contact regarding hostingin the narrow sense of holding the actual files, rather than being the domain registrar, it might all line up. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Parler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
REMOVE ALL INSTANCES OF EXTREMISTS IN THIS ARTICLE AND REPLACE ALL INSTANCES OF FAR-RIGHT WITH CONSERVATIVE! YOU DON'T WANT WIKIPEDIA TO REMAIN AS AN UNRELIABLE SOURCE! REMOVE ALL UNVERIFIED INFORMATION FROM THIS ARTICLE SUCH AS: "However, journalists have criticized this as being a cover for its far-right userbase.[22][10][11] Journalists and users have also criticized the service for content policies that are more restrictive than the company portrays and sometimes more restrictive than those of its competitors.[29][30][31][32] Some left-wing users have been banned from Parler for challenging the prevailing viewpoints on the site, criticizing Parler, or creating parody accounts.[33][34][35]"
THERE IS NOWHERE ON THE INTERNET THAT THIS IS CONFIRMED!
PLEASE TRY TO KEEP WIKIPEDIA CLEAN FROM CONSPIRACY THEORIES LIKE THIS AND THE INTERNET FOR THAT MATTER. Dr Engan ( talk) 09:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC) — Dr Engan ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
US Senator Rand Paul and TV pundit Sean Hannity updated the site with supportive commentary. https://parler.com/ TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 20:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Hamburger, Tom; Timberg, Craig (January 21, 2021). "House Oversight Committee chair requests FBI probe of Parler, including its role in Capitol siege". The Washington Post. Retrieved January 21, 2021.
This is probably useful somewhere in the article, maybe as a new bit at the end of the "2021" subsection. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
[65] DDOS-Guard had or is having a block of IP space revoked (8192 addresses) because it was allocated by LACNIC based on DDOS-guard being registered in Belize, but apparently the Belize registration is a shell company. Parler's current address is in that block. The revocation is based on a report filed in November, so I don't think the report was directly related to Parler (anyone know if Parler was using DDOS-guard at that time?). In any case, it can't have been related to the Capitol protests, which hadn't happened yet. It is possible, though, that LACNIC got around to reacting to the report in response to Parler being in the news. I think the revocation should be briefly mentioned in the article. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A ( talk) 19:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
As of Jan. 19, 2021, Parler is now hosted on a Russian-controlled server. Perhaps someone can find more detail on this, and update the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.178.91 ( talk) 22:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Dave Rubin is talking with Judge Jeanine Pirro on Fox right now about this. Maybe there is some other coverage as well. I'm not paying attention to the TV so I can't add more about the content of the discussion. Mentioning it here in case it shows up other places to, as a data point weighing into relevance. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A ( talk) 02:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Right now, our article says that As of January 2021, Parler had not added advertising to the platform, and had not received any known venture capital.
The
January source is from Wired UK, and it says, It has never received any venture capital funding and didn't make any money from advertising.
Seems plain enough. But now there's a report from the
Atlanta Journal-Constitution saying that
Marjorie Taylor Greene spent $207,000 to advertise there, after the election:
XOR'easter ( talk) 17:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
This is proof that the shutdown of Parler was really just about censoring a political point of view, and had nothing to do with the Capitol riot.
Here's an article about it:
And here's a list of the reports on the arrests that is linked to from the article:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr
Snrf234 ( talk) 06:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
"The service takes its name from the French verb parler, meaning 'to speak' (or sometimes, "to talk") as in the examples 'Parlez-vous français?' or 'Je veux parler avec ton gérant.' However, the app does not take the French pronunciation of the word—par-lay—and is instead pronounced 'parlor,' as in a sitting room where you greet your 19th-century visitors. Posts and messages made on the platform are called 'parleys.' " [67]
Related Youtube video: How to Pronounce Parler App? (CORRECTLY)
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
https://www.wsj.com/articles/parler-ceo-says-he-was-fired-by-conservative-political-donor-rebekah-mercer-11612397380 TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 01:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 01:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Done by a few others.
GorillaWarfare
(talk)
01:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
This has some info I hadn't seen before: https://variety.com/2021/digital/news/parler-ceo-fired-1234900438/ 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D ( talk) 18:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I find the article to be inflammatory as written, as it unjustly villainizes Parler, despite what I believe to be a preponderance of evidence to the contrary. I am very sensitive to what is and what is not anti-Semitic in nature. Based on having closely listened to the debates on all platforms and on both sides of the divide in Congress, it is quite clear that Parler exists as an alternative to anti-Semitic bias that is daily getting worse in America. The historic patterns are incontrovertible. It is always the people who want the power to make exceptions to lawful protections of all entities for the purpose of ending what they see as bad elements who themselves end up being history's Nazis, Pol-Pots and Stalins. That is why it is so very important to maintain the same rules of order for all targets of attack, such as Parlor.
The facts:
Trump has immediate Jewish family and is the first president in a long time to recognize Israel's right to name its own capital city. Furthermore, in every instance in which Trump is alleged by the media to have said something racist or otherwise hateful, a firsthand listen to his speech demonstrates otherwise. For example, he is accused of calling Hispanic people as the worst. If you listen to the quote, he is referring specifically to an Hispanic gang that preys heavily on Hispanic communities.
It is for this reason that people on the right formed a separate platform, Parlor, to express the views of people who are not biased against Jews, against Trump, against basic American values. It is an alternative platform to the regular media and social networks that have made facts out of falsehoods and fictions out of facts.
It is clear that the article as written was done so for the purpose of villainizing Parler. It does not remotely meet the Wikipedia guidelines and would not have lasted a day if it were written this way against a leftist community. To label it as anti-Semitic is particularly rich. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.58.101 ( talk) 01:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.Can you please explain whether a) you feel that there are other significant views published by reliable sources that present a different viewpoint that needs to be represented in this page, or b) the article does not represent the current sources that are being used? If a), please provide links to the reliable sources that you have found, ensuring they meet the policy on reliable sourcing. If you are unsure, WP:RSP contains a long list of commonly-suggested sources along with the general consensus among the Wikipedia editing community on whether or not they are considered reliable. If b), can you please be specific as to which statements do not represent the sourcing? If you are basing this comment on your personal experience with Parler, I'm afraid that can't be used to adjust the article, per our policy on original research. Thanks, GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
See: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Controversial_articles#Describe_the_controversy
The beginning of this article amounts to an opinion stated as fact --
"Parler (/ˈpɑːrlər/) is an American alt-tech microblogging and social networking service. It has a significant user base of Donald Trump supporters, conservatives, conspiracy theorists, and right-wing extremists.[8][9][10][11] Posts on the service often contain far-right content,[16] antisemitism,[23] and conspiracy theories such as QAnon.[27]"
I have personally seen the first part of this article used on Facebook as a reason not to use the platform. Amazon has de-platformed Parler, I suppose, because the ideas above are "truth" (that's sarcasm for those that need to be told). I see opinion, not truth. The statement "Parler is ..." instead of "According to (....) Parler is ..." promotes controversy.
If the goal is to shut down Wikipedia as well, this article could help. I don't expect any action to be taken. I doubt that anything would come of it. Good day. -- SBohrman ( talk) 10:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
You're way too smart for me. 98.159.27.38 ( talk) 12:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Parler is a social network taken down on false claims of incitement of violence. This network was a free speech network for everyone. his was so no matter how stupid you were you had the right to talk. It was part of the mass censorship in January of 2020. It as of 2/3/21 is still in legal disputes for its network to be put back on the shelf of apple and google play. They are in fact mostly a right wing site, but do not care if you disagree as long as you do not incite violence or bully users. It has sponsors like Sean Hannity a Fox host and Dan Bongino a youtube and rumble pod castor. You can also find Dan on Fox with Sean Hannity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AN7668 ( talk • contribs) 17:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC) — AN7668 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Recommendation - remove all references to controversial material from the general description and create a sub-heading titled "controversies" or something similar. Keeping the opening/lead in detail to facts only promotes consistency and adds credibility to content. For an example of the current inconsistency,do a side by side comparison of the lead ins for Parler and (the equally controversial) Twitter. Very different presentation. Stick2Fax ( talk) 04:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
This might lead to something usable, but I would like to see a better source:
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
I see a lot of comments on here regarding how the lead in/general info for Parler is written and would like to propose a recommendation to those with editing capabilities...
Could any content that may be construed as controversial and/or opinion-based be moved to a sub-heading titled "Controversies" or something similar? Doing this would keep overall content more closely representing an encyclopedia entry and would offer greater consistency across similar topics.
Thoughts? Stick2Fax ( talk) 02:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
To clarify - I'm not suggesting that anything be removed; rather, just reorganized. Other similar social network lead ins do not reference controversies or levels of support from extremist groups. I'm simply suggesting that their be consistency in the way things are written. In lieu of me providing a list, please just compare this lead in with that of Facebook. The differences are significant. Stick2Fax ( talk) 12:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
To be clear - my recommendations are intended as editorial enhancements only. The current entry is so weighed down by political references that it reads more like an opinion piece than an encyclopedia entry. My reference to Facebook has nothing to do with comparing the two social media platforms; rather, to illustrate an obvious and confusing difference in how the entries are written. Having all controversy references separate or even just in a single paragraph (like done with Facebook) just makes it read better. Stick2Fax ( talk) 14:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
OK, can you suggest what you want to reorganise? Can you give an example of what you want to move and where to?
Slatersteven (
talk)
14:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Sure - I recommend only leaving/adding the basic facts in the intro (i.e.: what it literally is, who created it, when, where, etc.). All political references can then be pulled out and noted under an appropriately titled sub-heading or in a separate paragraph with a proper lead in like "Parler has been linked to a number of controversies including..."
Here are a list of the items I recommend pulling out of the existing summary and rewriting separately:
-It has a significant user base of Donald Trump supporters, conservatives, conspiracy theorists, and right-wing extremists.[8][9][10][11] -Posts on the service often contain far-right content,[16] antisemitism,[23] and conspiracy theories such as QAnon.[27] Stick2Fax ( talk) 15:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
If you are looking for consistency among similar topics, you should compare the Parler article to social networks that are actually similar. Comparing Facebook and Parler is apples and oranges. If you look at articles about websites and platforms that are known for extremist userbases, you will see they are actually fairly consistent: Gab (social network), BitChute, 8chan, etc. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
I feel like my recommendations are getting completely lost here, so I digress. This topic is clearly too political to have a straightforward discussion about format. Thank you all for weighing in. Stick2Fax ( talk) 19:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry Slatersteven, I guess I just disagree. And I don't understand your reference to "coverage." I have always viewed Wikipedia as an online encyclopedia, but you describe it like it's more of an online newspaper. Anyway, I am very familiar with the wp.agf and am not trying to offend anyone. Just trying to offer a different viewpoint/suggestion. I'm getting the sense that this has been a well vetted topic already, though, and withdraw my recommendation. Thanks! Stick2Fax ( talk) 22:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Why are communists allowed to enforce their vile propaganda on articles about conservative subjects? Shouldn't they be banned per WP:NONAZIS, since communism is just as evil, racist, and genocidal as Nazism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.104.148.208 ( talk) 01:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What is up with the anti-semitism box, what kind of nonsense is this... put the box also on twitter then and any other platform, because anti-semitism is everywhere not just on Parler, by you people putting this box on this page, you just prove what this website has become, maybe you should rename it to democratpedia.. 80.200.232.97 ( talk) 17:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
This is probably pretty exciting for people who like Parler. TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 14:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
https://justthenews.com/nation/culture/welcome-back-parler-resumes-social-media-app-after-securing-new-computer-servers TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 14:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 14:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Still no "Reliable Sources" on the topic, which is confounding because there are roughly 15 million Parler Users; roughly the same number of LGBTQ Americans and closing in on the population of the NY metropolitan area - for an impression of scale. TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 15:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
RS have since reported on it! [1] [2] I've updated the status in the sidebar. Blade Jogger 2049 Talk 17:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I've added the information about Parler coming back online to the timeline section, and also mentioned they have announced an interim CEO. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
References
Multiple WP:NOTFORUM posts and invective
| ||
---|---|---|
The Opening Sentence is Awash in BiasWith equal fairness, it could be said that Twitter is dominated by Left Wing activists and those engaged in hating the 1/2 of America which supported free speech, capitalism, lower taxes, and secure borders. This Wikipedia article on Parler is wildly biased in favor of the Left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.27.38 ( talk) 23:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2021
Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a place where lies are protected. Stop letting this bullshit stand. 2600:8800:920B:6000:D596:5785:748B:6716 ( talk) 13:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
About this articleWhen I opened this article I truly thought the opening sentence was a vandalization from a far-left group. After analyzing the edits and this page to check what went wrong, I shockingly realized that (1) no, that was not a vandalization, the article was supposed to start like it did, (2) yes, a single far-left group of editors wrote this article (somewhat like if you had only Ben Shapiro editing the article about abortion), and (3) they control what goes into this article with an iron fist, a very authoritarian posture that goes completely against the collaborative spirit of wikipedia. They literally hijacked this article to the point that any other contribution will never, whatsoever, come to see the light of day if those far-left editors don't approve of it. The sheer amount of complaints in this page about the lack of balance of the article should be enough to make any sensible editor feel embarrassed, and probably would lead to he/she question the quality of the article, but sadly this doesn't seem to bother this group about this particular page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:65D2:4329:9DA9:D455:3A6B:B03E ( talk) 06:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
|
Re: this edit: [76]
Per WP:WEIGHT, do we really want to include everything some random wacko on Parler threatened online? I most likely could find some twitter or even wikipedia user who made similar threats. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Parler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change this article to specifically reference what Parler describes itself as what it describes itself as first. Due to the strong political nature of our countries condition as well as strong financial gains to be made by some as they control data and monetize that data, there is a strong push by certain groups to dominate certain areas and label certain groups in certain ways. With regards to any type of company or entity by which there is strong surrounding contraversy, I believe that it makes sense to start the article with a description of the group from the group. In this case, something like What Parler A social media platform started in 2019. Description of Self
our company [1]
Based in Henderson, Nevada, Parler is the solution to problems that have surfaced in recent years due to changes in Big Tech policy influenced by various special-interest groups. Parler is built upon a foundation of respect for privacy and personal data, free speech, free markets, and ethical, transparent corporate policy.
Encouraging a Culture of Innovation Parler’s staff come from many backgrounds and walks of life. We represent the community of those who want to be treated as valuable individuals, and not as corporate property. We are innovators and life-long learners, exploring new ideas, taking principled stands, and organizing our lives around our shared mission of making social media a more “social” place.
Beyond this, a third party voice pointing to assertions made by different groups made in the third person as appropriate (not taking sides or determining winners) would be appropriate. I would also expect the same for groups where there is significant issues with bias one way or another like "proud boys", "Antifa", etc. The issue otherwise is significant alienation and division of this community, as well as possible legal liability. I have given to this community in the past many times, and I don't desire to have it divide and throw others away. I don't think that is the point of this community, and I don't think that continuing in this polarizing direction is healthy. 67.41.71.144 ( talk) 23:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Parlers updated user count is 20 million
https://www.npr.org/2021/02/15/968116346/after-weeks-of-being-off-line-parler-finds-a-new-web-host
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-parler-website-idUSKBN2AF1OD TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 09:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
[ https://www.thetelegraph.com/business/article/Major-Trump-backer-Rebekah-Mercer-orchestrates-15974906.php ] -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Parler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The current read of this article is far to political, the article reads like the editor has never seen or viewed the actual content of the website.
"Parler (/ˈpɑːrlər/) is an American microblogging and social networking service. It has a significant user base of conservatives and right leaning moderates. Posts on the service often contain conservative views.[27] Users have described Parler as an alternative to Twitter, and the users base include those censored on mainstream social networks or opposing their overuse of censorship."
The beginning of this article reads like propaganda, I believe this edit is far closer to the truth. The rest of the article needs slight tweeks but otherwise is a good read. 2601:5CC:4401:FFF0:3591:9ABC:D5BE:7369 ( talk) 12:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
https://twitter.com/riScorpian/status/1367009694611611648
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 00:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
TO OPEN THE DEFINITION OF PARLER IN THE FOLLOWING WAY IS PROPAGANDISTIC LEFT WING RHETORIC THIS IS NOT A DEFINITION OF THE ORGANIZATION, IT IS A POLITICAL VIEW.: Parler (/ˈpɑːrlər/) " It has a significant user base of Donald Trump supporters, conservatives, conspiracy theorists, and far-right extremists.[8][9][10][11] Posts on the service often contain far-right content,[16] antisemitism,[23] and conspiracy theories such as QAnon.[27] " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capitanissa ( talk • contribs) 07:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Parler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This article has been edited to show bias towards a specific social media. All social media outlets contain conspiracy theorists and people with extreme views. Whoever wrote this about parler is clearly trying scare people away from the platform. Also the statements have zero substantiated proof. This ruins wikipedia's credibility to allow assumptions as fact. Maybe you allow me to edit twitter and facebook and call them communist totalitarian companies with far left conspiracy theorists that use the website? See generalization is wrong. Please do the right thing and remove these opinionated assumptions 142.161.246.106 ( talk) 02:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
There should be a reception section in the Parler article similar to the one in the Gab article. X-Editor ( talk) 05:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 06:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 07:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I understand that Parler contains a lot of antisemitic material and that the antisemitism sidebar therefore has been put into the article. However, unlike Gab, Parler does not strike me as being antisemitic in nature. Instead, it strikes me as being a service primarily for conservative speech, not free speech as it markets itself. It is worth noting WP:SIDEBAR and the fact that not every article that is linked to in a sidebar has the sidebar in it (take for example Fox News and its lack of the Conservatism US sidebar). I see the edit was made by Jonmaxras, who may be able to convince us why the sidebar should stay, if they defend the decision. Free Media Kid! 04:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
References
Side discussion about
Ted Cruz
|
---|
References
|
I'm not a great enthusiast for sidebars in general — often, they seem like a bit of a gimmick that doesn't add much value. But that's just my personal taste, and I'm not going to go around removing them on that basis. In this particular case, the sourcing is more than adequate to show the topic is relevant. (We go by reliable sources, not anecdotes.) I'm fine with this sidebar staying, though it might work better moved from near the top of the article to the "Content" section, which goes into depth on the relevant subject matter. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
If you know that a website allows antisemitic material to be freely posted and still continue to use that site, then you are effectively antisemitic yourself. --- Khajidha ( talk) 16:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
It was just determined by formal consensus that the antisemitism on Parler should be mentioned prominently in this article ( #RfC: Should "antisemitism" be removed from the lead?) so I really don't think we need to waste time relitigating that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
there's almost nothing singling out Parler as a platform notable for its antisemitismThat does not fit with past consensus, which determined the sourcing mentioned antisemitism on the site so prominently that it should be included in the lead. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
The antisemitism siderbar should be removed. It's obviously undue. -
Daveout
(talk)
19:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk)
23:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Mysteriously Parler is anti-Semitic since January 9, 2021, before they were not, only now ... The same anti-Semitism as any other social network. All sources cited ad-hoc to smear the site for obvious reasons. I think such serious claims should be supported by sources prior to the controversy of President Trump's censorship. For now, mention can be made in the article, but not include the site in the stigma of an anti-Semitic category. 90.69.60.202 ( talk) 02:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
First of all, I agree that Parler is anti-Semitic. But the posts on Parler stretch much further than that. They are anti-Hispanic, anti-left, Islamophobic, neo-confederate, and anti-democracy. The anti-semitism sidebar is inappropriate simply because it does not cover enough ground. I think, if we have one, a part of a series on neo-fascism would be more appropriate. Parler was the first mainstream fascist social media service, advertised to fascists and containing fascists. Fascism or neo-fascism would be appropriate. Anti-Semitism, while accurate, doesn't provide a full picture. RobotGoggles ( talk) 14:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Second of all, Parler is not anti-semitic. It is a platform like all others, although recently it is associated with a flock of conservatives. This wikipedia article is about Parler the app and what its functions and employees do. The content that is put onto Parler has no relation to Parler because of Section 230. What's stopping me from labeling Facebook or Twitter as a series on antisemitism when Neo-Nazi's are also using the platform? 🍋Lemonpasta🍋 [talk] 03:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
This thread keeps getting off-topic and I'd like to get somewhere near a consensus on the sidebar. As I originally stated at the beginning, I included it because Parler has an extensive history of hosting a lot of antisemitic and neo-Nazi content, as discussed above ( #RfC: Should "antisemitism" be removed from the lead?). Including the sidebar is relevant due to how prominent the content is on the website. Just because Parler has (had?) a somewhat larger following of mainstream conservatives than Gab, that does not make the antisemitic content any less notable or relevant. I would like to include the sidebar here for the same reasons it is included on Gab. Jonmaxras ( talk) 04:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment: So I did some Google advanced search and this is what I found: When I searched for pages necessarily containing both “Parler” and “Antisemitism”, 65.900 pages were found. When I searched for pages containing “Parler” that didn’t mention “Antisemitism”, 73.500.000 pages were found (including many reliable sources). Of course, this isn’t some sort of perfect proof of anything, but it may serve as some sort “hint” or “indication” that Parler isn’t so commonly linked to antisemitism as some editors are trying to make it seem. This could also indicate that the “antisemitism” sources may have been unintentionally cherry-picked in the previous rfc. (I restricted the search for English results only and from the last 12-months only, so there would be no French page using the word parler for other purposes). Feel free to re-do this test and tell what you’ve found. -
Daveout
(talk)
01:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
The platform has been heavily reported on by many a verifiable and creditable source as hosting numerous either anti-semitic in origin [...] or out-and-out anti-semitic.
I’d be very surprised if more than a tiny fraction of liberals cheering Parler’s removal from the internet have ever used the platform or know anything about it other than the snippets they have been shown by those seeking to justify its destruction and to depict it as some neo-Nazi stronghold. He also wrote that there's far more "grotesque" content being promoted on facebook and youtube. -
Daveout
(talk)
14:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment: It's been established that antisemitism is prevelant on this site and that it should be mentioned in the lead but I'd argue the sidebar still doesn't fit as per
WP:PROPORTION. The majority of sources cover the conspiracy theories, the QAnon stuff and other general alt-right talking points and so does this article. To warrant inclusion of this sidebar would require more coverage of antisemitism on this site. In short the standard for the sidebar is higher than for a mention in the lead. A general alt-right/right-wing/far-right whatever sidebar would probably be a better fit here and on a few other aricles though that doesn't seem to exist
87.77.209.37 (
talk)
14:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Side discussion about status quo and BRD
|
---|
By the way, why no consensus was required to add the siderbar (even though users contested its addition), but a consensus is required to remove it? (aren't those proposing contested changes the ones who should wait for consensus? shouldn't the status quo be preserved in the meantime?) -
|
GorillaWarfare: With this edit you re-inserted the sidebar and added hidden text to the article = "Please do not war over this sidebar; if you think it should be removed, please join the discussion on the talk page: Talk:Parler#Part of a series on Antisemitism". WP:HIDDEN says hidden text is inappropriate for "Telling others not to perform certain edits to a page ..." unless you base it on a guideline or policy, which you don't. I will replace the hidden text with guideline-compliant text -- "If you believe there should or should not be a sidebar here about antisemitism, please join the discussion on the talk page: Talk:Parler#Part of a series on Antisemitism" -- unless you have a guideline-compliant alternative. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 16:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I hate to throw a straw man out there, but isn’t it ironic that Adolph Hitler doesn’t have the sidebar but this does? PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 14:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
So far, no evidence indicating that antisemitism is more common on Parler than other forms of hate\far-right content has been presented. I assume the sidebar is being maintained for shock value only. -
Daveout
(talk)
15:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Unless something, some indication that Parler approves, condones, or in some way encourages anti Semitic views, then this description and portrayal of the service is a distortion. It portrays itself as a place for free speech, well that includes unpopular speech. If Wikipedia retains this description here in this way, it surrenders any right to call itself an objective source of information. I keep hoping for better from Wiki, as a long time user, and have been let down continually. Things have gotten worse in the past few years - why is Wiki participating in the quashing of free expression rather than fighting against it? Sych ( talk) 03:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC
Daveout
(talk)
16:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
There are antisemitic users of Facebook and Twitter, should we give those articles an antisemitic series as well?: one could probably find antisemitic users on just about any platform, but Parler, /pol/, etc. have the sidebar because a large portion of reliable sources that describe those sites comment on the significant presence of antisemitism there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete Does this discussion on categories apply to things like this? The result of the discussion was: Consensus for a unified approach to these categories; most support to ban individuals & organisations. Also the primary disadvantages of sidebars like this see WP:CLN
The lack of guidelines on hate speech has allowed racism and anti-Semitism to flourish on Parler[81].
It takes just 15 minutes to come across blatant antisemitism — a proxy of the Nazi flag, with the swastika tweaked slightly to display “45,” in reference to President Trump[82]. Or,
Within 24 hours of signing up, Parler recommended pro-Nazi content to me[83]. Contrast this with misogyny, for example, which has been mentioned, but to a much lesser extent. I wouldn't think a big "misogyny on the Internet" navigation template would be warranted here, based on what the article says currently, but the situation with antisemitism is different. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
References
The desire to remove a symbol of my Jewish identity as “hateful imagery” is, to me, no different from the desire to remove me as hateful just because I am Jewish.”Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 22:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
the sidebar is about something other than categories. Because it provides more detail and context than merely listing a word at the end of the page, we don't have to be as stringent about avoiding unintended meanings. The standards about applying categories, particularly broad categories, aren't really relevant. XOR'easter ( talk) 13:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk)
19:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)synergistic, each one complementing the othersand noting they appeal to editors who
differ in stylemeans that they don't have to be treated in the same way. Part of the reason we have lists instead of just categories is that lists can do things that categories can't. And because lists and navigational boxes can include more details and context than Category: membership, we don't have to worry so much about "splash damage". XOR'easter ( talk) 20:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
if simplepart of that guideline. This one has bits and pieces and moving parts; it's not what I'd call
simple. Really, though, for all the words we've spent on it, the central issue is I think rather straightforward. If I'm reading this article, is there a point where I'd go, "Hmm, I'd like to learn more about antisemitism on the Internet"? Given the lede and the "Content" section, I'd say yes. It's a reasonable connection to make. XOR'easter ( talk) 01:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk)
18:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
defined as antisemitic itselfand
contains antisemitic contentto be rather tenuous. It seems more like a shiftable goalpost than a real dividing line. How should a thing be defined as X apart from being full of X? XOR'easter ( talk) 15:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
suggestions or rules-of-thumb. One of those suggestions is that
if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining. Here, the characteristic is mentioned in the lead, and quite prominently. So, even if WP:NONDEF is relevant, it doesn't actually cut against including the sidebar here. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk)
17:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
@ FMSky: Can you elaborate a bit on what you think needs to be clarified in this sentence? GorillaWarfare (talk) 12:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
There might be usable material in here:
XOR'easter ( talk) 17:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC) And an update:
Matze's filing contains some information, or at least allegations, about Parler's financing. XOR'easter ( talk) 00:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Another news item possibly of use:
This is again reporting on claims that Matze made in filing his lawsuit, so it probably shouldn't be stated in plain wiki-voice, but it might be worth adding somewhere with the appropriate qualifications. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
I am posting this again because no one responded to me before. There should be a reception section in the Parler article similar to the one in the Gab article. X-Editor ( talk) 05:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Parler offline 5/17 as of 9:52 UTC
No articles about it yet, but tested through multiple browsers. Any RS? TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 09:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry. Possible that a google router is blocking the URL, but more likely that it is a settings issue on my end. TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 11:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Same thing with twitter now. It appears to be affecting users worldwide. It's possible that the "scraped" public IP's of Parler users are being spoofed in Ddos attacks on multiple sites to get them blocked. Google and ISP's are having a hard time figuring it out. Any RS? TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 13:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/17/22388685/twitter-partial-outage-saturday-east-coast TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 13:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Appears to be a DNS issue. Big DNS servers are refusing to resolve parler.com; including Google 8.8.8.8, Verizon and Comcast.
Any reliable sources?
https://downinspector.com/check/parler.com TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 23:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 00:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Resolved for me on a verizon DNS. Still no RS. Maybe just a really widespread configuration issue. TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 22:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Per new CEO, the app will return, with lawful content censored on the app to meet apple terms restrictions on lawful content (but content will still appear on the website or android APK)
"Parler has and will always be a place where people can engage in the free exchange of ideas in the full spirit of 1A. The entire Parler team has worked hard to address Apple's concerns without opposing our core mission. Adhering to Apple’s requirements, some content will be excluded from the iOS app. Anything allowed on Parler but not in the iOS app will remain accessible through our web-based and Android versions. This is a win-win for Parler, you, and free speech."
https://company-media.parler.com/pr/20210419-parler-app-store-pr.pdf
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/04/parler-re-platformed-as-apple-allows-social-network-back-into-app-store/ TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 09:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the last sentence of the "Departure of John Matze" section from:
"On March 22, 2020, in Clark County, Nevada, Matze filed a lawsuit against Parler's board, alleging that Rebekah Mercer and Parler's board members engaged in a scheme to steal Matze's share in Parler."
to
"On March 22, 2021, in Clark County, Nevada, Matze filed a lawsuit against Parler's board, alleging that Rebekah Mercer and Parler's board members engaged in a scheme to steal Matze's share in Parler."
Note that only the year changed from "2020" to "2021". Alternatively, the year could be removed to match the rest of the section.
AceGayhart ( talk) 21:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Parler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
My request is about the parler app. To say the user base are conspiracy theorists and far right extremists is a biased and very wrong! I hope your twitter page says its user base are morons and far left extemists and socialists. Because if not, your are far left extremists and socialists! 2600:100A:B023:4C4F:98BB:96B5:1F2A:9534 ( talk) 19:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
From Associated Press via Snopes:
Other Parler news:
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Parler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
“CEO Mark Meckler (interim)” the company Parler has named George Farmer as their new CEO Mark Meckler isn’t the CEO anymore 68.192.148.39 ( talk) 02:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Half of the references for QAnon don't mention QAnon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tahlor ( talk • contribs)
NOTTECHSUPPORT soibangla ( talk) 00:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The logo on the article (some symbol then the words Parler) is not the same logo used in the parler website. The logo used on parler.com is a red/purple-ish P.
I personally take an organization's/company's/etc...website over external/other sources. MiroslavGlavic ( talk) 17:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Daveout: I am modifying an pasting my edit summary here in the hopes of starting talk page discussion. The new source says the attack was "not centrally coordinated by far-right groups or prominent supporters of then-President Donald Trump". This does not negate the basic planning and coordination that happened on Parler. Again, this is a bold edit, reverted for good-faith reasons, and consensus needs to be built here for inclusion of the new content. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 03:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk)
10:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk)
11:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
An
analysis by a
subject-matter specialist gives reasons why the Reuters report might be missing the big picture. We can wait until that picture emerges. Just today:
a Politico report reveals that the day before the insurrection, the Secret Service warned the Capitol Police about threats of violence posted on Parler. “The user posted multiple threatening posts from today (01/05/21) to include, ‘Its time the DC Police get their ass whooped for being traitors in our nations capitol’, ‘DC Police are the enemy of the people. No mercy to them on the 6th. They are not on our side’, ‘time to fight! We cant trust the police, the laws, or the politicians. It’s time to take out all of them to remain a free country on the 6th.’ And ‘The police need to be dealth with on the 6th. Our 2A covers Marxist police officers. If they want a war, they will get one Wednesday. (middle finger emoji) the DC police.”
XOR'easter (
talk)
15:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Those involved in this conversation may also be interested in reading Talk:2021 United States Capitol attack#Reuters. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This entry is extremely heavy on opinion, and very light on fact. Citing the fact that people have an opinion about a topic is not itself a fact, but is merely couching opinions as fact. Sure, it's a fact that people think Parler is extreme right wing. But that's still just presenting opinions. The fact that other people have an opinion is no more valid in a Wikipedia entry than your own opinion. Please purge the opinion nonsense and limit this entry to actual facts. Daniducci ( talk) 04:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree, this article seems the moment I looked searching up Parler and I saw that, I thought, this sure looks like Wikipedia defamation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.136.107 ( talk) 04:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
This is a very biased description . It is very easy to tell that whoever wrote this does not like Parler, and wanted to smear it rather than inform about it. Extremists and conspiracy theorists appear in large quantities on every social network site, but I hardly see that mentioned in a description of any site but Parler. People who cannot handle unbiased reporting should not be writing wiki articles 2600:100E:BE16:12CA:A53D:F67F:4291:DB0C ( talk) 20:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
The sources do support the statement.I reverted your removal because there are numerous sources behind the descriptors. If you have any new sources that dispute the fact that Parler
often contain far-right content, antisemitism, and conspiracy theories such as QAnonwe can put it into the article and adjust the lead. Until then I see no reason to remove sourced content, especially something trivial as that. Mvbaron ( talk) 15:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Parler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change “ It has a significant user base of Donald Trump supporters, conservatives, conspiracy theorists, and far-right extremists.[9][10][11][12] Posts on the service often contain far-right content,[18] antisemitism,[25] and conspiracy theories such as QAnon.” To “ It has a significant user base of Donald Trump supporters, and conservatives.[9][10][11][12]” SupermanAtx ( talk) 22:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Using such words is misleading and false information. SupermanAtx ( talk) 22:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Does Wikipedia not have any formal standards for weasel words like "significant user base of" and "often" when referring to communities, sites, countries, or other multimillion scale groups of people? That's amazing. What do "significant" and "often" mean here? If the reality is some single digit percentage, I'm not sure we should ever smear groups with such loaded terms when it's single digit percentages. In this case, it appears to be less than 1% – far less. In what sense is that "significant"?
As far as reliable sources, where are those standards or lists? How is it established? There's no question that the sources are uniformly leftist. The New York Times is now explicitly promoting a bizarre radical leftist revisionist history project that seeks to change America's start year in multiple senses, along with a bunch of hard to articulate abstractions and sweeping claims – there's no sense in which they could claim to be impartial at this point, especially since they're explicitly politically partisan. The first cluster of sources also includes a socialist newspaper. In what sense are they "reliable" on political issues? Partisans are inherently unreliable in evaluating their adversaries – is this controversial?
The claims themselves are not tractable anyway, so the biased sources are just sort of a symptom. If we're saying "significant" and "often" without any objective standards, it doesn't matter if we have (leftist) sources that make those ambiguous smears. That's not anything.
As far as what's leftist or not, note that it's common for radical leftists to deny that something is leftist (e.g. a leftist media outlet), because it's not very leftist *to them*. That's standard relativity / extremism dynamics. I'm using leftist to simply mean left of center, not a radical's sense of "true" or "real" leftists.
This article is not a serious encyclopedic treatment. It's an amazing artifact, and couldn't be more biased. The smears, the predominant weasily use of "far-right" instead of just "right", the absence of any similar instances of "far-left" (just "left-leaning" and similar), the vague guilt by association terms like "significant" to mean maybe 0.01% of users, the use of exclusively leftist and far-left sources, etc. It's a very bad sign that this article could ever be live for more than a minute. It's an awful, wildly unethical, and unscholarly artifact. BlueSingularity ( talk) 05:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
BlueSingularity, stop the edit warring and seek consensus here. Your edit has been reverted because we could not find a basis for it in your provided source. Maybe it's there, so please provide the exact words in the source so we can verify and evaluate it. -- Valjean ( talk) 18:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
There's three discussions here going on about how this wiki article is misleading, and all about the same lines. Nobody is making any complaint about the content, they are making a complaint about the first lines of the article. The fact that certain people and groups use the service doesn't tell me what it is, what it does, how it's used, or what it's used for. All it tells me is that the people who wrote it are not in favor of certain groups and figures. If you're not going to make it a neutral article then at least put a bias warning at the top of the article. It's the decent thing to do since the editors are being so stubborn about the integrity and neutrality of this article, and this is coming from someone who is left leaning. 74.205.137.219 ( talk) 20:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk)
21:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
The false accusations that were used to deplatform Parler were debunked by the Justice Department. This should be clarified in the article, that the accusations were false, and that a DOJ investigation found that Facebook, not Parler, was the platform most widely used to co-ordinate the storming of the Capitol. [84] Polygraphics ( talk) 11:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
I think people need to read wp:soap and wp:forum. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps, then, you should propose some actual text in the form of "change X to Y" or "insert X", supported by citations to reliable sources. Simply crying "false!" doesn't work here. Make a suggestion so we can evaluate it. You are the one who wants something changed, so the burden is on you to propose how that should be done, and provide reliable sources to back it up. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 04:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Parler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the first paragraph of the page it reads:
Parler (/ˈpɑːrlər/) is an American alt-tech microblogging and social networking service associated with Donald Trump supporters, conservatives, conspiracy theorists, and far-right extremists.[9][10][11][12][13] Posts on the service often contain far-right content,[19] antisemitism,[26] and conspiracy theories such as QAnon.[30] Journalists have described Parler as an alt-tech alternative to Twitter, and users include those banned from mainstream social networks or who oppose their moderation policies.[9][12][31][13]
Should read something like:
Parler (/ˈpɑːrlər/) is an American alt-tech microblogging and social networking service commonly associated with Donald Trump supporters and conservatives. Journalists have described Parler as an alternative to Twitter, and users include those from other mainstream social networks who have been banned or oppose their moderation policies.[9][12][31][13]
This would better reflect the tone and stance of neutrality that wikipedia is meant to hold, and while certain groups may use parler, parler was not specifically designed for those groups, and so the use of parler should be noted on those group's respectve wikipedia pages and not the parler main page. To list some groups who use parler on the parler page would require that all groups be listed, wich is impossible due to the large volume of them.
Along with some basic grammar stuff.
Thank you. Supremosjr ( talk) 23:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk)
00:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Source: NPOV
Now that Parler is back in the stores, it demonstrates that there is a shift in their policies and moderation. All the sourcing on the lead paragraph is becoming outdated and should be for the body of the wiki page, not the lead. Specifically "Posts on the service often contain far-right content, antisemitism, and conspiracy theories such as QAnon." If consensus doesn't agree, I think it should be noted in the lead this is past tense and there have been changes more recently. Thoughts? Canadianr0ckstar2000 ( talk) 16:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Has not brought it, has not paid an penny for it, and may yet pull out. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:40, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Ye has had a reversal of fortune recently [85] so I wondered if there had been any update about this Parler deal. I don't see one in the article and haven't noticed one in news reporting, but maybe others here are paying more attention than I am. Also, recent management changes at Twitter might make its expats at Parler more willing to re-engage. [86] It will be interesting to find out what happens. Added: Ye himself has been reinstated on Twitter. [87] 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA ( talk) 19:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
According to The Verge Parler has been trying for weeks to make the Kanye deal happen, also Candace Owens played a larger role that should be reflected in the article. https://www.theverge.com/2022/10/18/23410816/kanye-parler-acquisition-business-history-free-speech-spam -- jonas ( talk) 19:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Parler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the second para, where there is the discussion on Parler's deplatforming, it may be useful to cite this recent study: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4232871
This paper suggests that some of the most entrenched Parler users moved on to Telegram where they become worse. It also suggests that despite coming back online in February 2021, Parler couldn't really regain the original momentum. 157.38.222.172 ( talk) 08:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
I've removed the Template:Update. It's been a few months. If new sources exist, please cite them or propose them. If such sources don't exist, the template isn't going to help much. Grayfell ( talk) 02:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Parler has been acquired and shutdown as of 14/4/23.
Article needs amending to reflect this. Element58.933 ( talk) 14:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Starboard's announcement uses the words "While the Parler app as it is currently constituted will be pulled down from operation to undergo a strategic assessment..." A "strategic assessment" sounds like something that would take more than a few days -- weeks or even months come to mind for a detailed assessment of something on that scale. It's really not clear why you would have to turn it off in order to make that assessment; if you own and operate the system you can inspect the system at your leisure while it's running, or take a snapshot and inspect that. — The Anome ( talk) 10:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
It's now been more than a month since the shutdown, and Parler is still down; requests to https://parler.com/ today are currently giving "503 Service Unavailable". At what point does "inactive" become "defunct"? Three months? Six months? A year? — The Anome ( talk) 15:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Parler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It would be a great idea to declare Parler DEFUNCT. Going on parler.com does not pull up anything and 3 months have passed since Parler shut down. It's very likely Parler will not be revived. 2603:8000:6001:8E45:F103:C524:618B:AB85 ( talk) 21:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Parler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Parler is back on since 22 Nov 2023, with its apex domain redirecting to the blog.parler.com subdomain with a 301 Permanent Redirect.
Reference for the date: https://web.archive.org/web/20231120052420/https://parler.com/ Matti Schneider ( talk) 09:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Parler.com now redirects to blog.parler.com, which looks like a news aggregator. I couldn't find any statement about the future, if any, of the social network. -- Mahlerite ( talk) 17:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Why do you state in the article that Parler is down while it is not? What we are dealing with here is disinformation. 37.30.122.247 ( talk) 15:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
![]() | This
edit request to
Parler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Was just going to add a link to Rebekah Mercer's wikipedia page since there is no link in the Founder(s) section Justinmoore2886 ( talk) 03:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Is this reliable for this page/topic? IHateAccounts ( talk) 05:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Parler remained the most downloaded app in the United States for five days in early November.That can be removed if anyone's uncomfortable with the sourcing, or we can try to find another source to replace/augment the Vice one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
pythonegg.com $15.95
Starting a discussion here on the topic of Twozerooz's addition to the lead, which (with my copyedits) reads:
Beginning in June 2020, some users reported being banned from Parler for espousing left-wing viewpoints. [1]
I'm not sure this is really leadworthy. It is supported by sourcing, and there is some discussion of the topic already in the article body at Parler#Content and moderation. However, in my view, the weight of discussion of this subject in the sourcing is somewhat lighter than that given to the other topics in the lead. It's also almost entirely based on users self-reporting being banned via tweet/etc. That said, there are multiple sources on it, so I figured I'd start a discussion here.
For the convenience of editors joining this discussion who wish to evaluate the sourcing, the existing coverage of this in the article is primarily based on these sources:
GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree that it is not leadworthy. The articles rely heavily on anonymous anecdotes, and even then there is no indication that users were banned for their political viewpoints. The Daily Dot article for example mentions that people were banned for creating fake accounts and spamming; nothing about their stances on issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobshack ( talk • contribs) 07:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC) — Jobshack ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Some of the sources are so so and even outright not RS such as Newsweek. If the question here is if it is lead worthy, I would have to say probably not. PackMecEng ( talk) 19:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Any of these used? https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/conservatives-flock-free-speech-social-media-app-which-has-started-n1232844 https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/nov/13/parler-conservative-social-network-free-speech . Slatersteven ( talk) 11:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
But as with every other platform on the internet, Parler's free speech stance goes only so far. The platform has been banning many people who joined and trolled conservativesfrom the first;
Leftists and liberals say they are already being banned from the app for content the conservative, free-speech-loving user base disagrees with.from the second. They don't specifically say they were banned for breaking rules; they do note that Parler has the right to ban anyone for any reason (just like any website), but the key point that all these sources note is that these show that, contrary to its press-speak about free speech, the site actually has fairly strict censorship policies, even relative to other major social media sites, and that it seems like they are applying these in a disproportionately politicized fashion. -- Aquillion ( talk) 06:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
References
Just noting that I have changed my mind around this being removed from the lead. I'm going to remove the {{ discuss}} tag, since discussion here has mostly dropped off and there seems to be no strong consensus for removal. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Anyone who's actually gone on the site knows it's nonsense. If something got deleted or they got booted it wasn't simply over espousing leftist notions, I guarantee there's more to the story they're not telling you - and the "reliable sources" I've looked at are light on substantiation - seems to be a bunch of people saying "I got banned!". Free speech doesn't mean anything goes. They have guidelines of course but they're common sense - unlike Twitter they *do not* censor people merely over ideology. You want to expound on why you think Carl Marx's ideas were golden even if all your points are utter nonsense factually? No problem. You think AOC is the genius of our times? Have at it. You think Hillary Clinton is a shoe-in for sainthood - expound away. On the other hand, spamming "F**k Trump!!" 50 times in a row, probably going to get deleted. Which will likely inspire shrieking about the "Alt-Right echo chamber!!" Docsavage20 ( talk) 10:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
My recommendation (apologies if this was already suggested and I missed it) - move the biased/controversial portions of Parlers description to a subheading called "Political Controversy" (or something similar). Subheadings like this could then also be added to the FB and Twitter pages. I really think this approach would offer some much needed consistency and add credibility to Wikipedia as a whole. The current differences between how the lead ins are written for FB, Twitter, and Parler are considerable. Stick2Fax ( talk) 14:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
This might be a useful source:
XOR'easter ( talk) 18:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
... Well, that's going to need an update.
On social media sites requested by the far-right, such as Gab and Parler, directions on which streets to take to avoid the police and which tools to bring to help pry open doors were exchanged in comments. At least a dozen people posted about carrying guns into the halls of Congress.
XOR'easter ( talk) 22:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
You should update the pronunciation, as well to be pɑːrleɪ PAR-Lay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:CFC0:3D:65B6:8433:6DF2:4B29 ( talk) 19:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
https://www.axios.com/capitol-mob-parler-google-ban-826d808d-3e06-4468-a7c6-6157557818b3.html
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/google-pulls-parler-from-play-store-for-fostering-calls-to-violence/ar-BB1cB6gV TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 01:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Is the app on F-droid ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.80.224.229 ( talk) 22:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
https://slate.com/technology/2021/01/parler-google-apple-amazon-aws-okta.html TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 16:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
From the first sentence, this page contains so much bias to the point where it's disgusting. I recommend that this page be extended protected so that unbiased moderators can fix the mess. In no way or form does this article follow the NPOV guidelines set by Wikipedia. NorfolkIsland123 ( talk) 23:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree. This was supposed to be an article about a tech platform, but what users get is an article about politics. No other social media platform is described politically in Wikipedia, but Parler and Gab. Can you picture how ridiculous it would be if a right-wing activist changed the entry paragraph of Twitter's article to something like: "Twitter is a microblogging famous for banning people they don't agree upon, that once banned the president of the United States while giving voice to Iran's dictator Khamenei'. As ridiculous as it sounds, that's exactly how this article is being handled. It's obvious that the political debate should be in a section of the article, not in the definition. It's obvious that the users that wrote this article are more interested in defaming the platform than to write an encyclopedia article. This kind of bias diminishes Wikipedia's purpose as a whole.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.90.245.161 ( talk • contribs) — 95.90.245.161 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The Wikipedia policy on
neutral point of view requires that we represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
Can you please explain whether a) you feel that there are other significant views published by reliable sources that present a different viewpoint that needs to be represented in this page, or b) the article does not represent the current sources that are being used? If a), please provide links to the reliable sources that you have found, ensuring they meet
the policy on reliable sourcing. If you are unsure,
WP:RSP contains a long list of commonly-suggested sources along with the general consensus among the Wikipedia editing community on whether or not they are considered reliable.
GorillaWarfare
(talk)
03:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Read wp:or and wp:v before you answer. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
considering CEO John Matze doesnt have his own article, I feel like this page should at least contain some biographical info on him, especially with the enormous attention Parler is getting recently. jonas ( talk) 02:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Amazon is booting Parler. Link for consumption.-- Jorm ( talk) 02:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
GW, it looks from the Register article that I linked further down, that Parler was using 100s of servers. Getting a site that size running at a new host is sure to be a hassle. Lots of data to migrate and likely plenty of issues to work out getting the new stuff running even if their software setup is super clean, which nobody's is ;). That they were using that much hardware with no apparent revenue makes their financing an even more interesting question than it already was. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A ( talk) 10:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Noted repeatedly Wikipietime ( talk) 03:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with "Further reading" sections in principle, of course, but the only entry in the one here is already used as a reference (currently #38), so it's not really "further". XOR'easter ( talk) 14:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I
reverted the insertion of It is based in Henderson, Nevada, United States
as the second sentence of the introduction. To my eye, that is sidebar material, not second-sentene-of-lede content. What difference would it make if it were Wilmington, Delaware instead of Henderson, Nevada? How much of the media coverage has emphasized Henderson, Nevada instead of how easy it is to find QAnon content there? Likewise, the intro should summarize the main text, but the main text only mentions the HQ location once, versus the lengthy discussion of other things. It seems to me that foregrounding the HQ location would be like putting, say, the
CU Denver computer-science department into the second sentence of the article. I've been
re-reverted in turn, so I'm opening a discussion here (though I'd have thought that
the discussion should have happened before the content was restored, not after). We've had plenty of debates about the lede on this Talk page, and the sentiment has been that what gets presented in the first couple lines is important. Thoughts?
XOR'easter (
talk)
14:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Parler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
As an educator with a masters degree in information services, I must point out the following, if not already noted. Parler is described in a negative and opinionated manner and going a step further in linking it to current unlawful events while Twitter is written in purely historical text with no links to violent events (like BLM protests). Quite peculiar. Thank you for reading below, comparing and changing this biased information to reflect a much more appropriate and comparative view of both. The Parler entry is currently offensive and full of hate. (Although I am sure it was not intentional in any way.)
Twitter description:
Twitter is an American microblogging and social networking service on which users post and interact with messages known as "tweets". Registered users can post, like and retweet tweets, but unregistered users can only read them. Users access Twitter through its website interface, through Short Message Service (SMS) or its mobile-device application software ("app").[13] Twitter, Inc. is based in San Francisco, California, and has more than 25 offices around the world.[14] Tweets were originally restricted to 140 characters, but was doubled to 280 for non-CJK languages in November 2017.[15] Audio and video tweets remain limited to 140 seconds for most accounts.
99.136.226.131 (
talk)
04:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Parler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the mention of what content is posted on there because there is no source to back that up. Anyone can post anything and therefore these comments are partisan and do not belong on an academic outlet such as wikipedia. 45.59.40.221 ( talk) 16:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure if we should do it. They could find a new host. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nar 2608 ( talk • contribs) 16:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Parler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
To assert that Parler is a "right wing, etc. " platform is a full blown lie. This is an opinion from a very specific biased perspective, not a fact. Wikipedia needs immediately to correct the opening statement on Parler. 2601:640:C601:E360:1961:2D4D:13A8:FA6B ( talk) 21:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
So Parler went offline on January 11 (EST) at Midnight. So it was the 11th for half the country and the 10th for half the country. Let's just get the discussion started and over with so we can have a consensus for which date to use.
{Since I do not know of any Wiki policies that actually impact this, I think a consensus will be a majority vote for this. Could be wrong though}
Parler apparently claims [10] that Rob Monster's company (that also hosts Gab) will be hosting Parler going forward. I'll leave it to the big brains here to decide when and how to report/source this if it's used in the article. It should also go in the Rob Monster biography once it's considered accurate and documented. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A ( talk) 02:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Parler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add libertarian, which the CEO noted she is in a recent interview. Also, remove the anti semitism sections, which seems far fetched and the reference article does not point to the site. Disclaimer777cc ( talk) 03:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Parler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Would you change from "is" to "was", because this company is likely to be (almost) out of business. 2001:4452:4AE:8A00:185E:CD99:DA35:72CA ( talk) 04:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This website is meant to bring information to people not someone's bias on the topic being searched. This site I used to use alot but it turns in to a biased views on history and other topics like here on the Parler site. You know people have posted far-right content on twitter but would never put that on twitter's wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:482:2:5CF0:113C:C592:E95D:6EFF ( talk) 05:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
This person is correct. There is yoo much liberal bias in the editorial content on WP. Havequick99 ( talk) 14:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Parler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The description of this website is extremely opinionated and bias. It makes Parler seem like a right-wing extremist social media organization when it is actually a free-speech platform that welcomes anyone to speak freely and not be censored. Not supporting extreme censorship should not be labeled "right-wing" as this kind of censorship should be unacceptable to all people of every party. The description on wiki does not accurately portray Parler and it should be rewritten with less bias and contempt towards anything related towards conservitism. 2601:200:4:29BE:41D:F9D0:7E3F:6343 ( talk) 19:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Article seems kind of slanted by stating that Parler is full of trump supporters and right wing extremists. Anyone can join any time they want. It's not like there's a political questionnaire that you have to pass before joining. Conservatives are feeling pushed there by being silenced on twitter and Facebook. Heyman1104 ( talk) 19:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC) — Heyman1104 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
If you look at the Alexa page about Parler, the sites its visitors frequent most are conservative ones like the Daily Caller. There are also reports of Parler having booted off left-wing users. [11] It might be worth citing this in the article.
Following the recent shutdown of Voat, someone on Hacker News made an insightful and sad comment that could also apply to Parler:
When you add to that the background of Parler's founders and executives (see for example the wiki biography of Rebekah Mercer), it really does come across as a partisan activist site rather than a neutral one, despite its protestations otherwise. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A ( talk) 21:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
There are two different parts of the article about the data exfiltration that need harmonization.
From the === 2021 === section:
From the === Security === section:
-- Fuzheado | Talk 20:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
Parler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Parler protects your privacy and it allows freedom of speech not violence and AWS(Amazon Web Services) broke their contract with them cause they where supposed to give 30 day notice before they take down any thing instead they gave 30hours since Parler was growing and becoming a competitor with tweeter they broke their contract thus resulting in AWS getting sewed by Parler. side note it has a lot of conservatives users cause tweeter banned President Trump and any conservatives who think they don't have enough ground to do that. -Tom W. Lemke BlazingFox05 ( talk) 22:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
[13] describes reactions to the AWS shutdown. It quotes an ACLU lawyer:
Glenn Greenwald cited that quote in particular. [14]
This should be in the article in some form, I think. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A ( talk) 22:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
im an independent but this article does seem pretty biased skewed left — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Leothenormal (
talk •
contribs)
15:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC) —
Leothenormal (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
Regarding the recent addition of "On December 23, President Donald Trump vetoed the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 in part because it did not repeal Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which shields internet companies from being liable for what is posted on their websites by third parties." to this article by Enthusiast01: in my opinion this feels misplaced. While I'm sure it would be relevant to William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 and Section 230, there is no statement in-text (or in the provided sources) about how this applies to Parler, nor do I think we should add one. There is also no mention of the veto override, which is an important detail.
It doesn't make sense to write about this veto on all of the articles of web companies that could potentially be affected by a Section 230 repeal; there are thousands of them. Any content about Section 230 that is directly relevant to Parler, for example perhaps the very unusual choice for Parler to issue a statement in support of repealing 230, could be added. Anything else should be saved for the articles that go into proper detail on the legislation, in my opinion.
What do you think? GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
And, by the way - there is plenty of mention of non Parler sites in the same section, without objection being raised.? GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I think this is worth some thought and research. I will see what I can do, though I can't spend much time on this stuff. Someone on Hacker News brought it up about a week ago too. Parler's shutdown is one of a cluster of events that resemble each other enough to be related. If we've got a reasonable source calling out the similarity, we should use it. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A ( talk) 10:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
In the frenzy of trying to not be supressed, Parler users are scrambling and making hasty choices about life-boats to grab on to.
The results point to deeper radicalization
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/01/on-telegram-white-nationalists-are-trying-to-radicalize-those-fleeing-parler/ TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 21:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
There is a published argument in the other direction that I'll try to find. Basically it says pushing lunatics to the fringes is better than having them in the mainstream. There is another one that said if we just had plain old free speech competing on its merits things would be fine, but instead we have engagement-boosting algorithms focusing more attention on anger and conflict, which in turn generates more anger and conflict, etc. In other words the Parler phenomenon results from the ad-funded internet and social media algorithmic feeds, and the answer is to break up Facebook, Google, etc. I can probably find some RS-ish publications that say things like this, though they may be too old to mention Parler specifically. But it's an area of thought whose existence we should note if we can. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A ( talk) 10:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether this might be useful, or if so where, but it seems worth posting here to see if anyone else has thoughts:
XOR'easter ( talk) 23:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Another news item in the "maybe useful" category:
XOR'easter ( talk) 03:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I saw a forum comment suggesting that Parler's ID requirements and other aspects of its TOS were geared towards a world without Section 230. I thought that was interesting. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A ( talk) 06:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
It's offline and being reported the CEO is unsure if they will ever be able to get back up online now. I'd say irs safe to say its dead Sneakycrown ( talk) 23:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
" 'This case is not about suppressing speech or stifling viewpoints. It is not about a conspiracy to restrain trade,' Amazon's attorneys wrote in a filing late Tuesday. 'Instead, this case is about Parler’s demonstrated unwillingness and inability to remove from the servers of Amazon Web Services (AWS) content that threatens the public safety, such as by inciting and planning the rape, torture, and assassination of named public officials and private citizens.' " Source: USA Today -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
but extended to lawful speech that was found objectionable as wellWhich is the source for this bit? GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
We would never report that Parler demonstrated unwillingness and inability to remove from the servers of Amazon Web Services content that threatens the public safety, such as by inciting and planning the rape, torture, and assassination of named public officials and private citizens. that would violate our basic principles. However, we would and should report that Amazon said that Parler demonstrated unwillingness and inability to remove from the servers of Amazon Web Services content that threatens the public safety, such as by inciting and planning the rape, torture, and assassination of named public officials and private citizens. Not reporting the reliably sourced reasons Amazon gave would violate our basic principles. If there are any reliable secondary sources that say that Amazon was wrong and that Parler actually did demonstrate unwillingness and ability etc. We should report that as well. Do you know of any reliable source that said that? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
It's certainly observable that conservative outlets like Fox News are furious over this situation. Fox is mostly TV though. I don't know if their web outlets have anything we can cite. Don't forget that the other side has its own conflicts of interest, e.g. the WaPo is owned by Jeff Bezos. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A ( talk) 11:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Lets wait for the courts to decide which sides arguments are correct. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I can't find any, yet. Charles Juvon ( talk) 19:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean about Streisand effect. Parler's shutdown hasn't attracted any new Parler users so far, since Parler is offline. If it comes back, it will probably get an at least temporary surge of users, and we can report that once there is sourcing. I put a link further up about other sites in the conservative social space that are maybe getting new users from Parler's current unavailability. There has been stuff on TV about Donald Trump himself wanting to start a site of some kind, once he leaves the WH. An impeachment conviction/martyrdom barring him from running for POTUS again may turn out to work to his advantage, if he wants to become a social media baron. It's a natural progression from reality TV, heh. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A ( talk) 23:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Parler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2601:882:180:AD50:C895:5078:2492:DCF1 ( talk) 02:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
remove 'anti-semitism' because Parler's community standards are against anti-semitic posts, therefore Parler cannot be anti-semitic if they are against anti-semitic posts.
![]() | This
edit request to
Parler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Parler (/ˈpɑːrlər/) is an American alt-tech microblogging and social networking service. Parler has a significant user base of Donald Trump supporters and conservatives..[8][9][10][11] Posts on the service often contain right wing content,[16] strong family values,[23] and ways to combat terror organizations such as black lives matter or AntiFA.[27] Journalists have described Parler as an alternative to Twitter and a place where people can speak freely.[8][11][28] Stonks43 ( talk) 19:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC) — Stonks43 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
![]() | This
edit request to
Parler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
As of the morning of the 18th Jan, the Parler website is back online in a limited way and not defunct, as stated. Might be worth changing to label as 'defunct' is factually incorrect. Robbyyy ( talk) 00:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Parler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Free speech request to strike (remove) the opening paragraph. Remove unsubstantiated biased references to avoid litigious liability on the part of wikipedia. Endlesspath ( talk) 16:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
[30] I think this is worth using in the article. It mentions that AWS is supposed to give clients 30 days notice before booting them for TOS breaches. I wonder if Parler got such a notice. I did see an article about prior discussions between Amazon and Parler, that might already be in the article or here on the talk page. If not, I can try to find it again. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A ( talk) 23:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
AWS can even terminate or suspend its agreement with a customer immediately under certain circumstances as it did in 2010 with Wikileaks, pointing to violations of AWS’ terms of service. [...] Parler could have protected itself more. Large AWS customers can sign up for more extensive agreements, which allow more customers time to get into compliance if they wind up breaking rules. Gartner analyst Lydia Leong spelled out this difference in a blog post: “Thirty days is a common timeframe specified as a cure period in contracts (and is the cure period in the AWS standard Enterprise Agreement), but cloud provider click-through agreements (such as the AWS Customer Agreement) do not normally have a cure period, allowing immediate action to be taken at the provider’s discretion,” she wrote.XOR'easter ( talk) 00:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
that AWS failed to provide notice to Parler that Parler was in breach, and to give Parler 30 days to cure, as Parler claims is required per Section 7.2(b)(i). However, Parler fails to acknowledge, let alone dispute, that Section 7.2(b)(ii)—the provision immediately following—authorizes AWS to terminate the Agreement “immediately upon notice” and without providing any opportunity to cure “if [AWS has] the right to suspend under Section 6.” And Section 6 provides, in turn, that AWS may “suspend [Parler’s or its] End User’s right to access or use any portion or all of the Service Offerings immediately upon notice” for a number of reasons, including if AWS determines that Parler is “in breach of this Agreement.” In short, the CSA gives AWS the right either to suspend or to terminate, immediately upon notice, in the event Parler is in breach.(Quoted from here.) I guess it always goes to read the fine print. XOR'easter ( talk) 02:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Parler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
parler is back online: Slinkyw ( talk) 02:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
No Slinkyw ( talk) 02:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Parler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Parler (/ˈpɑːrlər/) is an American alt-tech microblogging and social networking service. Parler has a significant user base of Donald Trump supporters, conservatives, conspiracy theorists, and right-wing extremists.[8][9][10][11] Posts on the service often contain far-right content,[16] antisemitism,[23] and conspiracy theories such as QAnon JamesMartin03 ( talk) 11:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
What kind of definition of a business is this? This is closer to Nazi propaganda than a description that comes anywhere near approaching reality. Does someone have stock in Twitter here? Because you could describe Twitter with the same inflammatory rhetoric, if you were so inclined to. It's embarrassing to humanity to imagine anyone would expect another human being to accept this as any semblance of reality. This is your get real wake up call.
JamesMartin03 ( talk) 11:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Journalists have described Parler as an alternative to Twitter.
However you do not input what parlor describes itself as.
Parler's objective and goal directly from their web site as of January 19, 2021:
Now seems like the right time to remind you all — both lovers and haters — why we started this platform. We believe privacy is paramount and free speech essential, especially on social media. Our aim has always been to provide a nonpartisan public square where individuals can enjoy and exercise their rights to both.
We will resolve any challenge before us and plan to welcome all of you back soon. We will not let civil discourse perish!
Parler is an anonymous free speech platform that aims at allowing users to operate and self govern, without the big tech overlord controlling the content, they are simply a user platform.
Parler is equivalent to the earth if you compare its virtual existence to a real world counterpart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.250.230.242 ( talk) 19:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
It isn't about reprinting a companies "marketing" policy. It is as informing people of the facts. Leaving out information is the same as falsifying information. Rephrasing information and changing how it is written is also falsifying the truth.
Not telling the whole truth is the same telling a lie. You can report all day what people say about a topic, but what is the point of it when you don't include information about the topic itself.
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
64.250.230.242 (
talk)
19:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
-- Lonerganvalko ( talk) 21:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC) Wow, I have witnessed blatant bias quite a lot, but this really takes the biscuit. This article should be removed from wikipedia immediately, or editing enabled to allow for balanced updates. Reading this article, it is quite clear that its sole purpose is to influence rather than inform. Really disappointing that this has crept into wikipedia. Disallowing editing by other users is a form of censorship which should not be tolerated here. Preventing others from providing balanced content, in my view, only conveys the fear that the arm of manipulation will have a shorter reach. Lonerganvalko ( talk) 21:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
[34] I think this is worth using in the article. Former Parler users were advised to buy ham radio gear, since that was described as the only way they could communicate after now-former president Trump launched his hypothesized plans to take permanent power. This discusses some of the users' expectations prior to the WH handover. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A ( talk) 05:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
[35] Interesting article comparing Parler and the alt-right's current hosting and payments tribulations to similar ones that the porn industry faced in past years. Says that credit card payments are a bigger choke point than hosting. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A ( talk) 07:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
It's pretty hilarious how a supposedly objective and fact-based wiki cannot state at the beginning what Parler even is. It's a non-partisan social media platform that promotes free speech and that at least one of the owners is a Libertarian (the CPO Amy Peikoff). The way the information is organized and the language used is obvious it is trying to sway its image rather than risk allowing people to make their own judgements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Free Speech Babe ( talk • contribs) 18:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.Can you please explain whether a) you feel that there are other significant views published by reliable sources that present a different viewpoint that needs to be represented in this page, or b) the article does not represent the current sources that are being used? If a), please provide links to the reliable sources that you have found, ensuring they meet the policy on reliable sourcing. If you are unsure, WP:RSP contains a long list of commonly-suggested sources along with the general consensus among the Wikipedia editing community on whether or not they are considered reliable. If b), can you please be specific as to which statements do not represent the sourcing? Thanks, GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Parler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Parler is NOT full of racists and Nazis. remove the slander and stop calling conservatives names, or we will resort to calling yall communists because you are trying to shut down and defame anyone who disagrees with you. REMOVE THE SLANDER WIKIPEDIA! 2603:8081:6640:2E57:DCAF:F194:D9B3:EA63 ( talk) 21:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
[36] 67.160.203.180 ( talk) 06:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Please read wP:notaforum. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Newsweek might be trying to make Parler their beat:
XOR'easter ( talk) 19:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC) One more:
XOR'easter ( talk) 02:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
The news coverage of Parler has dropped off a lot (much like the daily page views of this article), but Newsweek has run another three items this week:
XOR'easter ( talk) 21:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
One more:
XOR'easter ( talk) 19:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Two more
None of these pieces seem to be saying anything so dramatic that I'd want another source to back them up, but none of them look like real shoe-leather journalism, either. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Three more:
Again, these may or may not be useful in the article itself, but I think it's good to keep track of the niche that Newsweek is trying to carve out for itself. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Should the URL be removed from the infobox? It no longer works, and it might be a while before they get it back up, if ever. See https://www.newsweek.com/parler-website-app-down-offline-longer-expected-ceo-john-matze-1560384 -- Guy Macon ( talk) 10:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
The website currently doesn't exist and the apps are non-functioning. Unless resurrected, it is currently dead. I think it should say "Parler *was* a social media..." Aryattack ( talk) 12:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
source: https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/11/22223335/parler-amazon-terminates-web-hosting-aws-google-apple-capitol Aryattack ( talk) 12:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
[37] I'll leave this for others but I'm sure there are secondary sources. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A ( talk) 09:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 15:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Since the link to the web page is not available it would be convenient to place a link to the last screenshot of this from the Web Archive.
https://web.archive.org/web/20210111080256/https://parler.com/
--
PatriaDeTodos (
talk)
19:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
"At least several users of the far-right social network Parler appear to be among the horde of rioters that managed to penetrate deep inside the U.S. Capitol building and into areas normally restricted to the public, according to GPS metadata linked to videos posted to the platform the day of the insurrection in Washington." Source: Gizmodo -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
There is already a little bit about this topic in the article but (like the above) it's all quite vague, so I'd support adding anything that is available. I haven't seen any revenue model for Parler yet that makes actual sense, so it comes across either as a vanity project or a deep pocket propaganda outlet, depending on your cynicism. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A ( talk) 05:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
https://gizmodo.com/parlers-suit-trying-to-force-amazon-to-host-it-again-do-1846063580 TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 11:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLq6cQ--4f90ja7xShfORhnlvnvHaG05zj RogerNiceEyes ( talk) 21:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/15/parler-telegram-chat-apps/ TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 23:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I'd appreciate if people writing this article who have info about Parler's technology and infrastructure, plus things like its traffic levels, post counts, etc., could please add the info to the article if the info's sourcing is good enough for that. If you have something that seems credible and isn't contentious, but needs further research before it's considered reliable enough for the article proper, I'd say it's ok to put it here on the talk page as a starting point for others to dig into. I know that Parler was hosted on AWS which means they were setting a nontrivial amount of money on fire just for that. I'm interested to know how much traffic it was serving (not just the user count), what software it used, etc. Thanks. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A ( talk) 08:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Guy, do you mean it was based on Wordpress *recently*? The features I saw described in the article didn't sound like Wordpress, but I never looked at Parler and I'm not that familiar with fancier Wordpress setups. This was interesting:
2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A ( talk) 09:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Per Alexa Parler was (today) the #180 site in the US and #848 in the world. The cross-engagement site list does look dominated by conservative media. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A ( talk) 09:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I find Parlers' claims to be inconsistent with their inability to put up a simple web page at parler.com. Just go to Dreamhost and point your DNS at a simple web page hosted pretty much anywhere. I can see why they would have trouble bringing up a copy of big site with many pages but pointing the A record at a simple HTML page? I could do that in my sleep.
Interesting handwaving from dreamhost, making a big deal about domain registry not being the same as content hosting: https://twitter.com/dreamhost/status/1347729331808841736 Also see:
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 11:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A ( talk) 16:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
A couple of replies to all the above:
Hope this clarifies some things! GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
https://www.lastweekinaws.com/blog/parlers-new-serverless-architecture/ TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 15:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
That article is not very convincing, though it mentions a few interesting things. EC2 VM's are just like any other VM's. One question is why they were using AWS in the first place though, if they weren't relying on special AWS features. AWS is ridiculously expensive compared to almost anything else they could use. The execs must have felt like they had money to burn, that presumably came from Mercer. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A ( talk) 10:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
[50] I don't see any sources of revenue that could fund the hosting described. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 06:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Interesting reading — not sure how solid the source is, but if the story holds up, confirmation will doubtless be coming:
Apparently, when Twilio cut their ties with Parler, user account creation and verification failed open rather than closed. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
"Security researchers" who found a glitch, exploited it and took away 70TB of a company's private client data, which they plan to release publicly....are refered to as "security researchers" in this context. That's new.
TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 22:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Site back online with an IP address 190.115.31.151 (Belize). 14:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirvanatoday ( talk • contribs)
y: "One post on Telegram includes antisemitic comments about Parler's CEO." The circle of life.... XOR'easter ( talk) 18:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
The splash page is hosted on "DDOS-GUARD CORP" in Belize [ https://ddos-guard.net/ ].
The domain registry is now with Epik [ https://www.epik.com/ ]. I suspect that Dreamhost refused to be their domain registrar.
From our article :"Epik is a domain registrar and web hosting company known for providing services to websites that host far-right, neo-Nazi, and other extremist content. It was described in 2019 by Vice as 'a safehaven for the extreme right" because of its willingness to host far-right websites that have been denied service by other Internet service providers.' "
We don't have a page on DDos Guard. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
On January 11 Parler registered its domain with Epik, a company known for hosting other far-right websites, including Gab. Epik says Parler has not made contact regarding hosting. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
contact regarding hostingin the narrow sense of holding the actual files, rather than being the domain registrar, it might all line up. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Parler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
REMOVE ALL INSTANCES OF EXTREMISTS IN THIS ARTICLE AND REPLACE ALL INSTANCES OF FAR-RIGHT WITH CONSERVATIVE! YOU DON'T WANT WIKIPEDIA TO REMAIN AS AN UNRELIABLE SOURCE! REMOVE ALL UNVERIFIED INFORMATION FROM THIS ARTICLE SUCH AS: "However, journalists have criticized this as being a cover for its far-right userbase.[22][10][11] Journalists and users have also criticized the service for content policies that are more restrictive than the company portrays and sometimes more restrictive than those of its competitors.[29][30][31][32] Some left-wing users have been banned from Parler for challenging the prevailing viewpoints on the site, criticizing Parler, or creating parody accounts.[33][34][35]"
THERE IS NOWHERE ON THE INTERNET THAT THIS IS CONFIRMED!
PLEASE TRY TO KEEP WIKIPEDIA CLEAN FROM CONSPIRACY THEORIES LIKE THIS AND THE INTERNET FOR THAT MATTER. Dr Engan ( talk) 09:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC) — Dr Engan ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
US Senator Rand Paul and TV pundit Sean Hannity updated the site with supportive commentary. https://parler.com/ TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 20:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Hamburger, Tom; Timberg, Craig (January 21, 2021). "House Oversight Committee chair requests FBI probe of Parler, including its role in Capitol siege". The Washington Post. Retrieved January 21, 2021.
This is probably useful somewhere in the article, maybe as a new bit at the end of the "2021" subsection. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
[65] DDOS-Guard had or is having a block of IP space revoked (8192 addresses) because it was allocated by LACNIC based on DDOS-guard being registered in Belize, but apparently the Belize registration is a shell company. Parler's current address is in that block. The revocation is based on a report filed in November, so I don't think the report was directly related to Parler (anyone know if Parler was using DDOS-guard at that time?). In any case, it can't have been related to the Capitol protests, which hadn't happened yet. It is possible, though, that LACNIC got around to reacting to the report in response to Parler being in the news. I think the revocation should be briefly mentioned in the article. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A ( talk) 19:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
As of Jan. 19, 2021, Parler is now hosted on a Russian-controlled server. Perhaps someone can find more detail on this, and update the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.178.91 ( talk) 22:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Dave Rubin is talking with Judge Jeanine Pirro on Fox right now about this. Maybe there is some other coverage as well. I'm not paying attention to the TV so I can't add more about the content of the discussion. Mentioning it here in case it shows up other places to, as a data point weighing into relevance. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A ( talk) 02:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Right now, our article says that As of January 2021, Parler had not added advertising to the platform, and had not received any known venture capital.
The
January source is from Wired UK, and it says, It has never received any venture capital funding and didn't make any money from advertising.
Seems plain enough. But now there's a report from the
Atlanta Journal-Constitution saying that
Marjorie Taylor Greene spent $207,000 to advertise there, after the election:
XOR'easter ( talk) 17:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
This is proof that the shutdown of Parler was really just about censoring a political point of view, and had nothing to do with the Capitol riot.
Here's an article about it:
And here's a list of the reports on the arrests that is linked to from the article:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr
Snrf234 ( talk) 06:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
"The service takes its name from the French verb parler, meaning 'to speak' (or sometimes, "to talk") as in the examples 'Parlez-vous français?' or 'Je veux parler avec ton gérant.' However, the app does not take the French pronunciation of the word—par-lay—and is instead pronounced 'parlor,' as in a sitting room where you greet your 19th-century visitors. Posts and messages made on the platform are called 'parleys.' " [67]
Related Youtube video: How to Pronounce Parler App? (CORRECTLY)
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
https://www.wsj.com/articles/parler-ceo-says-he-was-fired-by-conservative-political-donor-rebekah-mercer-11612397380 TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 01:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 01:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Done by a few others.
GorillaWarfare
(talk)
01:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
This has some info I hadn't seen before: https://variety.com/2021/digital/news/parler-ceo-fired-1234900438/ 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D ( talk) 18:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I find the article to be inflammatory as written, as it unjustly villainizes Parler, despite what I believe to be a preponderance of evidence to the contrary. I am very sensitive to what is and what is not anti-Semitic in nature. Based on having closely listened to the debates on all platforms and on both sides of the divide in Congress, it is quite clear that Parler exists as an alternative to anti-Semitic bias that is daily getting worse in America. The historic patterns are incontrovertible. It is always the people who want the power to make exceptions to lawful protections of all entities for the purpose of ending what they see as bad elements who themselves end up being history's Nazis, Pol-Pots and Stalins. That is why it is so very important to maintain the same rules of order for all targets of attack, such as Parlor.
The facts:
Trump has immediate Jewish family and is the first president in a long time to recognize Israel's right to name its own capital city. Furthermore, in every instance in which Trump is alleged by the media to have said something racist or otherwise hateful, a firsthand listen to his speech demonstrates otherwise. For example, he is accused of calling Hispanic people as the worst. If you listen to the quote, he is referring specifically to an Hispanic gang that preys heavily on Hispanic communities.
It is for this reason that people on the right formed a separate platform, Parlor, to express the views of people who are not biased against Jews, against Trump, against basic American values. It is an alternative platform to the regular media and social networks that have made facts out of falsehoods and fictions out of facts.
It is clear that the article as written was done so for the purpose of villainizing Parler. It does not remotely meet the Wikipedia guidelines and would not have lasted a day if it were written this way against a leftist community. To label it as anti-Semitic is particularly rich. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.58.101 ( talk) 01:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.Can you please explain whether a) you feel that there are other significant views published by reliable sources that present a different viewpoint that needs to be represented in this page, or b) the article does not represent the current sources that are being used? If a), please provide links to the reliable sources that you have found, ensuring they meet the policy on reliable sourcing. If you are unsure, WP:RSP contains a long list of commonly-suggested sources along with the general consensus among the Wikipedia editing community on whether or not they are considered reliable. If b), can you please be specific as to which statements do not represent the sourcing? If you are basing this comment on your personal experience with Parler, I'm afraid that can't be used to adjust the article, per our policy on original research. Thanks, GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
See: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Controversial_articles#Describe_the_controversy
The beginning of this article amounts to an opinion stated as fact --
"Parler (/ˈpɑːrlər/) is an American alt-tech microblogging and social networking service. It has a significant user base of Donald Trump supporters, conservatives, conspiracy theorists, and right-wing extremists.[8][9][10][11] Posts on the service often contain far-right content,[16] antisemitism,[23] and conspiracy theories such as QAnon.[27]"
I have personally seen the first part of this article used on Facebook as a reason not to use the platform. Amazon has de-platformed Parler, I suppose, because the ideas above are "truth" (that's sarcasm for those that need to be told). I see opinion, not truth. The statement "Parler is ..." instead of "According to (....) Parler is ..." promotes controversy.
If the goal is to shut down Wikipedia as well, this article could help. I don't expect any action to be taken. I doubt that anything would come of it. Good day. -- SBohrman ( talk) 10:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
You're way too smart for me. 98.159.27.38 ( talk) 12:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Parler is a social network taken down on false claims of incitement of violence. This network was a free speech network for everyone. his was so no matter how stupid you were you had the right to talk. It was part of the mass censorship in January of 2020. It as of 2/3/21 is still in legal disputes for its network to be put back on the shelf of apple and google play. They are in fact mostly a right wing site, but do not care if you disagree as long as you do not incite violence or bully users. It has sponsors like Sean Hannity a Fox host and Dan Bongino a youtube and rumble pod castor. You can also find Dan on Fox with Sean Hannity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AN7668 ( talk • contribs) 17:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC) — AN7668 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Recommendation - remove all references to controversial material from the general description and create a sub-heading titled "controversies" or something similar. Keeping the opening/lead in detail to facts only promotes consistency and adds credibility to content. For an example of the current inconsistency,do a side by side comparison of the lead ins for Parler and (the equally controversial) Twitter. Very different presentation. Stick2Fax ( talk) 04:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
This might lead to something usable, but I would like to see a better source:
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
I see a lot of comments on here regarding how the lead in/general info for Parler is written and would like to propose a recommendation to those with editing capabilities...
Could any content that may be construed as controversial and/or opinion-based be moved to a sub-heading titled "Controversies" or something similar? Doing this would keep overall content more closely representing an encyclopedia entry and would offer greater consistency across similar topics.
Thoughts? Stick2Fax ( talk) 02:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
To clarify - I'm not suggesting that anything be removed; rather, just reorganized. Other similar social network lead ins do not reference controversies or levels of support from extremist groups. I'm simply suggesting that their be consistency in the way things are written. In lieu of me providing a list, please just compare this lead in with that of Facebook. The differences are significant. Stick2Fax ( talk) 12:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
To be clear - my recommendations are intended as editorial enhancements only. The current entry is so weighed down by political references that it reads more like an opinion piece than an encyclopedia entry. My reference to Facebook has nothing to do with comparing the two social media platforms; rather, to illustrate an obvious and confusing difference in how the entries are written. Having all controversy references separate or even just in a single paragraph (like done with Facebook) just makes it read better. Stick2Fax ( talk) 14:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
OK, can you suggest what you want to reorganise? Can you give an example of what you want to move and where to?
Slatersteven (
talk)
14:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Sure - I recommend only leaving/adding the basic facts in the intro (i.e.: what it literally is, who created it, when, where, etc.). All political references can then be pulled out and noted under an appropriately titled sub-heading or in a separate paragraph with a proper lead in like "Parler has been linked to a number of controversies including..."
Here are a list of the items I recommend pulling out of the existing summary and rewriting separately:
-It has a significant user base of Donald Trump supporters, conservatives, conspiracy theorists, and right-wing extremists.[8][9][10][11] -Posts on the service often contain far-right content,[16] antisemitism,[23] and conspiracy theories such as QAnon.[27] Stick2Fax ( talk) 15:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
If you are looking for consistency among similar topics, you should compare the Parler article to social networks that are actually similar. Comparing Facebook and Parler is apples and oranges. If you look at articles about websites and platforms that are known for extremist userbases, you will see they are actually fairly consistent: Gab (social network), BitChute, 8chan, etc. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
I feel like my recommendations are getting completely lost here, so I digress. This topic is clearly too political to have a straightforward discussion about format. Thank you all for weighing in. Stick2Fax ( talk) 19:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry Slatersteven, I guess I just disagree. And I don't understand your reference to "coverage." I have always viewed Wikipedia as an online encyclopedia, but you describe it like it's more of an online newspaper. Anyway, I am very familiar with the wp.agf and am not trying to offend anyone. Just trying to offer a different viewpoint/suggestion. I'm getting the sense that this has been a well vetted topic already, though, and withdraw my recommendation. Thanks! Stick2Fax ( talk) 22:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Why are communists allowed to enforce their vile propaganda on articles about conservative subjects? Shouldn't they be banned per WP:NONAZIS, since communism is just as evil, racist, and genocidal as Nazism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.104.148.208 ( talk) 01:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What is up with the anti-semitism box, what kind of nonsense is this... put the box also on twitter then and any other platform, because anti-semitism is everywhere not just on Parler, by you people putting this box on this page, you just prove what this website has become, maybe you should rename it to democratpedia.. 80.200.232.97 ( talk) 17:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
This is probably pretty exciting for people who like Parler. TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 14:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
https://justthenews.com/nation/culture/welcome-back-parler-resumes-social-media-app-after-securing-new-computer-servers TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 14:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 14:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Still no "Reliable Sources" on the topic, which is confounding because there are roughly 15 million Parler Users; roughly the same number of LGBTQ Americans and closing in on the population of the NY metropolitan area - for an impression of scale. TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 15:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
RS have since reported on it! [1] [2] I've updated the status in the sidebar. Blade Jogger 2049 Talk 17:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I've added the information about Parler coming back online to the timeline section, and also mentioned they have announced an interim CEO. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
References
Multiple WP:NOTFORUM posts and invective
| ||
---|---|---|
The Opening Sentence is Awash in BiasWith equal fairness, it could be said that Twitter is dominated by Left Wing activists and those engaged in hating the 1/2 of America which supported free speech, capitalism, lower taxes, and secure borders. This Wikipedia article on Parler is wildly biased in favor of the Left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.27.38 ( talk) 23:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2021
Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a place where lies are protected. Stop letting this bullshit stand. 2600:8800:920B:6000:D596:5785:748B:6716 ( talk) 13:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
About this articleWhen I opened this article I truly thought the opening sentence was a vandalization from a far-left group. After analyzing the edits and this page to check what went wrong, I shockingly realized that (1) no, that was not a vandalization, the article was supposed to start like it did, (2) yes, a single far-left group of editors wrote this article (somewhat like if you had only Ben Shapiro editing the article about abortion), and (3) they control what goes into this article with an iron fist, a very authoritarian posture that goes completely against the collaborative spirit of wikipedia. They literally hijacked this article to the point that any other contribution will never, whatsoever, come to see the light of day if those far-left editors don't approve of it. The sheer amount of complaints in this page about the lack of balance of the article should be enough to make any sensible editor feel embarrassed, and probably would lead to he/she question the quality of the article, but sadly this doesn't seem to bother this group about this particular page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:65D2:4329:9DA9:D455:3A6B:B03E ( talk) 06:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
|
Re: this edit: [76]
Per WP:WEIGHT, do we really want to include everything some random wacko on Parler threatened online? I most likely could find some twitter or even wikipedia user who made similar threats. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Parler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change this article to specifically reference what Parler describes itself as what it describes itself as first. Due to the strong political nature of our countries condition as well as strong financial gains to be made by some as they control data and monetize that data, there is a strong push by certain groups to dominate certain areas and label certain groups in certain ways. With regards to any type of company or entity by which there is strong surrounding contraversy, I believe that it makes sense to start the article with a description of the group from the group. In this case, something like What Parler A social media platform started in 2019. Description of Self
our company [1]
Based in Henderson, Nevada, Parler is the solution to problems that have surfaced in recent years due to changes in Big Tech policy influenced by various special-interest groups. Parler is built upon a foundation of respect for privacy and personal data, free speech, free markets, and ethical, transparent corporate policy.
Encouraging a Culture of Innovation Parler’s staff come from many backgrounds and walks of life. We represent the community of those who want to be treated as valuable individuals, and not as corporate property. We are innovators and life-long learners, exploring new ideas, taking principled stands, and organizing our lives around our shared mission of making social media a more “social” place.
Beyond this, a third party voice pointing to assertions made by different groups made in the third person as appropriate (not taking sides or determining winners) would be appropriate. I would also expect the same for groups where there is significant issues with bias one way or another like "proud boys", "Antifa", etc. The issue otherwise is significant alienation and division of this community, as well as possible legal liability. I have given to this community in the past many times, and I don't desire to have it divide and throw others away. I don't think that is the point of this community, and I don't think that continuing in this polarizing direction is healthy. 67.41.71.144 ( talk) 23:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Parlers updated user count is 20 million
https://www.npr.org/2021/02/15/968116346/after-weeks-of-being-off-line-parler-finds-a-new-web-host
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-parler-website-idUSKBN2AF1OD TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 09:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
[ https://www.thetelegraph.com/business/article/Major-Trump-backer-Rebekah-Mercer-orchestrates-15974906.php ] -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Parler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The current read of this article is far to political, the article reads like the editor has never seen or viewed the actual content of the website.
"Parler (/ˈpɑːrlər/) is an American microblogging and social networking service. It has a significant user base of conservatives and right leaning moderates. Posts on the service often contain conservative views.[27] Users have described Parler as an alternative to Twitter, and the users base include those censored on mainstream social networks or opposing their overuse of censorship."
The beginning of this article reads like propaganda, I believe this edit is far closer to the truth. The rest of the article needs slight tweeks but otherwise is a good read. 2601:5CC:4401:FFF0:3591:9ABC:D5BE:7369 ( talk) 12:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
https://twitter.com/riScorpian/status/1367009694611611648
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 00:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
TO OPEN THE DEFINITION OF PARLER IN THE FOLLOWING WAY IS PROPAGANDISTIC LEFT WING RHETORIC THIS IS NOT A DEFINITION OF THE ORGANIZATION, IT IS A POLITICAL VIEW.: Parler (/ˈpɑːrlər/) " It has a significant user base of Donald Trump supporters, conservatives, conspiracy theorists, and far-right extremists.[8][9][10][11] Posts on the service often contain far-right content,[16] antisemitism,[23] and conspiracy theories such as QAnon.[27] " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capitanissa ( talk • contribs) 07:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Parler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This article has been edited to show bias towards a specific social media. All social media outlets contain conspiracy theorists and people with extreme views. Whoever wrote this about parler is clearly trying scare people away from the platform. Also the statements have zero substantiated proof. This ruins wikipedia's credibility to allow assumptions as fact. Maybe you allow me to edit twitter and facebook and call them communist totalitarian companies with far left conspiracy theorists that use the website? See generalization is wrong. Please do the right thing and remove these opinionated assumptions 142.161.246.106 ( talk) 02:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
There should be a reception section in the Parler article similar to the one in the Gab article. X-Editor ( talk) 05:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 06:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 07:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I understand that Parler contains a lot of antisemitic material and that the antisemitism sidebar therefore has been put into the article. However, unlike Gab, Parler does not strike me as being antisemitic in nature. Instead, it strikes me as being a service primarily for conservative speech, not free speech as it markets itself. It is worth noting WP:SIDEBAR and the fact that not every article that is linked to in a sidebar has the sidebar in it (take for example Fox News and its lack of the Conservatism US sidebar). I see the edit was made by Jonmaxras, who may be able to convince us why the sidebar should stay, if they defend the decision. Free Media Kid! 04:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
References
Side discussion about
Ted Cruz
|
---|
References
|
I'm not a great enthusiast for sidebars in general — often, they seem like a bit of a gimmick that doesn't add much value. But that's just my personal taste, and I'm not going to go around removing them on that basis. In this particular case, the sourcing is more than adequate to show the topic is relevant. (We go by reliable sources, not anecdotes.) I'm fine with this sidebar staying, though it might work better moved from near the top of the article to the "Content" section, which goes into depth on the relevant subject matter. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
If you know that a website allows antisemitic material to be freely posted and still continue to use that site, then you are effectively antisemitic yourself. --- Khajidha ( talk) 16:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
It was just determined by formal consensus that the antisemitism on Parler should be mentioned prominently in this article ( #RfC: Should "antisemitism" be removed from the lead?) so I really don't think we need to waste time relitigating that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
there's almost nothing singling out Parler as a platform notable for its antisemitismThat does not fit with past consensus, which determined the sourcing mentioned antisemitism on the site so prominently that it should be included in the lead. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
The antisemitism siderbar should be removed. It's obviously undue. -
Daveout
(talk)
19:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk)
23:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Mysteriously Parler is anti-Semitic since January 9, 2021, before they were not, only now ... The same anti-Semitism as any other social network. All sources cited ad-hoc to smear the site for obvious reasons. I think such serious claims should be supported by sources prior to the controversy of President Trump's censorship. For now, mention can be made in the article, but not include the site in the stigma of an anti-Semitic category. 90.69.60.202 ( talk) 02:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
First of all, I agree that Parler is anti-Semitic. But the posts on Parler stretch much further than that. They are anti-Hispanic, anti-left, Islamophobic, neo-confederate, and anti-democracy. The anti-semitism sidebar is inappropriate simply because it does not cover enough ground. I think, if we have one, a part of a series on neo-fascism would be more appropriate. Parler was the first mainstream fascist social media service, advertised to fascists and containing fascists. Fascism or neo-fascism would be appropriate. Anti-Semitism, while accurate, doesn't provide a full picture. RobotGoggles ( talk) 14:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Second of all, Parler is not anti-semitic. It is a platform like all others, although recently it is associated with a flock of conservatives. This wikipedia article is about Parler the app and what its functions and employees do. The content that is put onto Parler has no relation to Parler because of Section 230. What's stopping me from labeling Facebook or Twitter as a series on antisemitism when Neo-Nazi's are also using the platform? 🍋Lemonpasta🍋 [talk] 03:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
This thread keeps getting off-topic and I'd like to get somewhere near a consensus on the sidebar. As I originally stated at the beginning, I included it because Parler has an extensive history of hosting a lot of antisemitic and neo-Nazi content, as discussed above ( #RfC: Should "antisemitism" be removed from the lead?). Including the sidebar is relevant due to how prominent the content is on the website. Just because Parler has (had?) a somewhat larger following of mainstream conservatives than Gab, that does not make the antisemitic content any less notable or relevant. I would like to include the sidebar here for the same reasons it is included on Gab. Jonmaxras ( talk) 04:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment: So I did some Google advanced search and this is what I found: When I searched for pages necessarily containing both “Parler” and “Antisemitism”, 65.900 pages were found. When I searched for pages containing “Parler” that didn’t mention “Antisemitism”, 73.500.000 pages were found (including many reliable sources). Of course, this isn’t some sort of perfect proof of anything, but it may serve as some sort “hint” or “indication” that Parler isn’t so commonly linked to antisemitism as some editors are trying to make it seem. This could also indicate that the “antisemitism” sources may have been unintentionally cherry-picked in the previous rfc. (I restricted the search for English results only and from the last 12-months only, so there would be no French page using the word parler for other purposes). Feel free to re-do this test and tell what you’ve found. -
Daveout
(talk)
01:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
The platform has been heavily reported on by many a verifiable and creditable source as hosting numerous either anti-semitic in origin [...] or out-and-out anti-semitic.
I’d be very surprised if more than a tiny fraction of liberals cheering Parler’s removal from the internet have ever used the platform or know anything about it other than the snippets they have been shown by those seeking to justify its destruction and to depict it as some neo-Nazi stronghold. He also wrote that there's far more "grotesque" content being promoted on facebook and youtube. -
Daveout
(talk)
14:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment: It's been established that antisemitism is prevelant on this site and that it should be mentioned in the lead but I'd argue the sidebar still doesn't fit as per
WP:PROPORTION. The majority of sources cover the conspiracy theories, the QAnon stuff and other general alt-right talking points and so does this article. To warrant inclusion of this sidebar would require more coverage of antisemitism on this site. In short the standard for the sidebar is higher than for a mention in the lead. A general alt-right/right-wing/far-right whatever sidebar would probably be a better fit here and on a few other aricles though that doesn't seem to exist
87.77.209.37 (
talk)
14:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Side discussion about status quo and BRD
|
---|
By the way, why no consensus was required to add the siderbar (even though users contested its addition), but a consensus is required to remove it? (aren't those proposing contested changes the ones who should wait for consensus? shouldn't the status quo be preserved in the meantime?) -
|
GorillaWarfare: With this edit you re-inserted the sidebar and added hidden text to the article = "Please do not war over this sidebar; if you think it should be removed, please join the discussion on the talk page: Talk:Parler#Part of a series on Antisemitism". WP:HIDDEN says hidden text is inappropriate for "Telling others not to perform certain edits to a page ..." unless you base it on a guideline or policy, which you don't. I will replace the hidden text with guideline-compliant text -- "If you believe there should or should not be a sidebar here about antisemitism, please join the discussion on the talk page: Talk:Parler#Part of a series on Antisemitism" -- unless you have a guideline-compliant alternative. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 16:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I hate to throw a straw man out there, but isn’t it ironic that Adolph Hitler doesn’t have the sidebar but this does? PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 14:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
So far, no evidence indicating that antisemitism is more common on Parler than other forms of hate\far-right content has been presented. I assume the sidebar is being maintained for shock value only. -
Daveout
(talk)
15:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Unless something, some indication that Parler approves, condones, or in some way encourages anti Semitic views, then this description and portrayal of the service is a distortion. It portrays itself as a place for free speech, well that includes unpopular speech. If Wikipedia retains this description here in this way, it surrenders any right to call itself an objective source of information. I keep hoping for better from Wiki, as a long time user, and have been let down continually. Things have gotten worse in the past few years - why is Wiki participating in the quashing of free expression rather than fighting against it? Sych ( talk) 03:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC
Daveout
(talk)
16:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
There are antisemitic users of Facebook and Twitter, should we give those articles an antisemitic series as well?: one could probably find antisemitic users on just about any platform, but Parler, /pol/, etc. have the sidebar because a large portion of reliable sources that describe those sites comment on the significant presence of antisemitism there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete Does this discussion on categories apply to things like this? The result of the discussion was: Consensus for a unified approach to these categories; most support to ban individuals & organisations. Also the primary disadvantages of sidebars like this see WP:CLN
The lack of guidelines on hate speech has allowed racism and anti-Semitism to flourish on Parler[81].
It takes just 15 minutes to come across blatant antisemitism — a proxy of the Nazi flag, with the swastika tweaked slightly to display “45,” in reference to President Trump[82]. Or,
Within 24 hours of signing up, Parler recommended pro-Nazi content to me[83]. Contrast this with misogyny, for example, which has been mentioned, but to a much lesser extent. I wouldn't think a big "misogyny on the Internet" navigation template would be warranted here, based on what the article says currently, but the situation with antisemitism is different. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
References
The desire to remove a symbol of my Jewish identity as “hateful imagery” is, to me, no different from the desire to remove me as hateful just because I am Jewish.”Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 22:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
the sidebar is about something other than categories. Because it provides more detail and context than merely listing a word at the end of the page, we don't have to be as stringent about avoiding unintended meanings. The standards about applying categories, particularly broad categories, aren't really relevant. XOR'easter ( talk) 13:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk)
19:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)synergistic, each one complementing the othersand noting they appeal to editors who
differ in stylemeans that they don't have to be treated in the same way. Part of the reason we have lists instead of just categories is that lists can do things that categories can't. And because lists and navigational boxes can include more details and context than Category: membership, we don't have to worry so much about "splash damage". XOR'easter ( talk) 20:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
if simplepart of that guideline. This one has bits and pieces and moving parts; it's not what I'd call
simple. Really, though, for all the words we've spent on it, the central issue is I think rather straightforward. If I'm reading this article, is there a point where I'd go, "Hmm, I'd like to learn more about antisemitism on the Internet"? Given the lede and the "Content" section, I'd say yes. It's a reasonable connection to make. XOR'easter ( talk) 01:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk)
18:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
defined as antisemitic itselfand
contains antisemitic contentto be rather tenuous. It seems more like a shiftable goalpost than a real dividing line. How should a thing be defined as X apart from being full of X? XOR'easter ( talk) 15:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
suggestions or rules-of-thumb. One of those suggestions is that
if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining. Here, the characteristic is mentioned in the lead, and quite prominently. So, even if WP:NONDEF is relevant, it doesn't actually cut against including the sidebar here. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk)
17:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
@ FMSky: Can you elaborate a bit on what you think needs to be clarified in this sentence? GorillaWarfare (talk) 12:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
There might be usable material in here:
XOR'easter ( talk) 17:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC) And an update:
Matze's filing contains some information, or at least allegations, about Parler's financing. XOR'easter ( talk) 00:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Another news item possibly of use:
This is again reporting on claims that Matze made in filing his lawsuit, so it probably shouldn't be stated in plain wiki-voice, but it might be worth adding somewhere with the appropriate qualifications. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
I am posting this again because no one responded to me before. There should be a reception section in the Parler article similar to the one in the Gab article. X-Editor ( talk) 05:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Parler offline 5/17 as of 9:52 UTC
No articles about it yet, but tested through multiple browsers. Any RS? TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 09:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry. Possible that a google router is blocking the URL, but more likely that it is a settings issue on my end. TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 11:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Same thing with twitter now. It appears to be affecting users worldwide. It's possible that the "scraped" public IP's of Parler users are being spoofed in Ddos attacks on multiple sites to get them blocked. Google and ISP's are having a hard time figuring it out. Any RS? TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 13:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/17/22388685/twitter-partial-outage-saturday-east-coast TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 13:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Appears to be a DNS issue. Big DNS servers are refusing to resolve parler.com; including Google 8.8.8.8, Verizon and Comcast.
Any reliable sources?
https://downinspector.com/check/parler.com TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 23:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 00:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Resolved for me on a verizon DNS. Still no RS. Maybe just a really widespread configuration issue. TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 22:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Per new CEO, the app will return, with lawful content censored on the app to meet apple terms restrictions on lawful content (but content will still appear on the website or android APK)
"Parler has and will always be a place where people can engage in the free exchange of ideas in the full spirit of 1A. The entire Parler team has worked hard to address Apple's concerns without opposing our core mission. Adhering to Apple’s requirements, some content will be excluded from the iOS app. Anything allowed on Parler but not in the iOS app will remain accessible through our web-based and Android versions. This is a win-win for Parler, you, and free speech."
https://company-media.parler.com/pr/20210419-parler-app-store-pr.pdf
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/04/parler-re-platformed-as-apple-allows-social-network-back-into-app-store/ TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 09:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the last sentence of the "Departure of John Matze" section from:
"On March 22, 2020, in Clark County, Nevada, Matze filed a lawsuit against Parler's board, alleging that Rebekah Mercer and Parler's board members engaged in a scheme to steal Matze's share in Parler."
to
"On March 22, 2021, in Clark County, Nevada, Matze filed a lawsuit against Parler's board, alleging that Rebekah Mercer and Parler's board members engaged in a scheme to steal Matze's share in Parler."
Note that only the year changed from "2020" to "2021". Alternatively, the year could be removed to match the rest of the section.
AceGayhart ( talk) 21:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Parler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
My request is about the parler app. To say the user base are conspiracy theorists and far right extremists is a biased and very wrong! I hope your twitter page says its user base are morons and far left extemists and socialists. Because if not, your are far left extremists and socialists! 2600:100A:B023:4C4F:98BB:96B5:1F2A:9534 ( talk) 19:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
From Associated Press via Snopes:
Other Parler news:
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Parler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
“CEO Mark Meckler (interim)” the company Parler has named George Farmer as their new CEO Mark Meckler isn’t the CEO anymore 68.192.148.39 ( talk) 02:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Half of the references for QAnon don't mention QAnon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tahlor ( talk • contribs)
NOTTECHSUPPORT soibangla ( talk) 00:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The logo on the article (some symbol then the words Parler) is not the same logo used in the parler website. The logo used on parler.com is a red/purple-ish P.
I personally take an organization's/company's/etc...website over external/other sources. MiroslavGlavic ( talk) 17:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Daveout: I am modifying an pasting my edit summary here in the hopes of starting talk page discussion. The new source says the attack was "not centrally coordinated by far-right groups or prominent supporters of then-President Donald Trump". This does not negate the basic planning and coordination that happened on Parler. Again, this is a bold edit, reverted for good-faith reasons, and consensus needs to be built here for inclusion of the new content. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 03:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk)
10:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk)
11:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
An
analysis by a
subject-matter specialist gives reasons why the Reuters report might be missing the big picture. We can wait until that picture emerges. Just today:
a Politico report reveals that the day before the insurrection, the Secret Service warned the Capitol Police about threats of violence posted on Parler. “The user posted multiple threatening posts from today (01/05/21) to include, ‘Its time the DC Police get their ass whooped for being traitors in our nations capitol’, ‘DC Police are the enemy of the people. No mercy to them on the 6th. They are not on our side’, ‘time to fight! We cant trust the police, the laws, or the politicians. It’s time to take out all of them to remain a free country on the 6th.’ And ‘The police need to be dealth with on the 6th. Our 2A covers Marxist police officers. If they want a war, they will get one Wednesday. (middle finger emoji) the DC police.”
XOR'easter (
talk)
15:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Those involved in this conversation may also be interested in reading Talk:2021 United States Capitol attack#Reuters. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This entry is extremely heavy on opinion, and very light on fact. Citing the fact that people have an opinion about a topic is not itself a fact, but is merely couching opinions as fact. Sure, it's a fact that people think Parler is extreme right wing. But that's still just presenting opinions. The fact that other people have an opinion is no more valid in a Wikipedia entry than your own opinion. Please purge the opinion nonsense and limit this entry to actual facts. Daniducci ( talk) 04:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree, this article seems the moment I looked searching up Parler and I saw that, I thought, this sure looks like Wikipedia defamation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.136.107 ( talk) 04:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
This is a very biased description . It is very easy to tell that whoever wrote this does not like Parler, and wanted to smear it rather than inform about it. Extremists and conspiracy theorists appear in large quantities on every social network site, but I hardly see that mentioned in a description of any site but Parler. People who cannot handle unbiased reporting should not be writing wiki articles 2600:100E:BE16:12CA:A53D:F67F:4291:DB0C ( talk) 20:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
The sources do support the statement.I reverted your removal because there are numerous sources behind the descriptors. If you have any new sources that dispute the fact that Parler
often contain far-right content, antisemitism, and conspiracy theories such as QAnonwe can put it into the article and adjust the lead. Until then I see no reason to remove sourced content, especially something trivial as that. Mvbaron ( talk) 15:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Parler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change “ It has a significant user base of Donald Trump supporters, conservatives, conspiracy theorists, and far-right extremists.[9][10][11][12] Posts on the service often contain far-right content,[18] antisemitism,[25] and conspiracy theories such as QAnon.” To “ It has a significant user base of Donald Trump supporters, and conservatives.[9][10][11][12]” SupermanAtx ( talk) 22:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Using such words is misleading and false information. SupermanAtx ( talk) 22:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Does Wikipedia not have any formal standards for weasel words like "significant user base of" and "often" when referring to communities, sites, countries, or other multimillion scale groups of people? That's amazing. What do "significant" and "often" mean here? If the reality is some single digit percentage, I'm not sure we should ever smear groups with such loaded terms when it's single digit percentages. In this case, it appears to be less than 1% – far less. In what sense is that "significant"?
As far as reliable sources, where are those standards or lists? How is it established? There's no question that the sources are uniformly leftist. The New York Times is now explicitly promoting a bizarre radical leftist revisionist history project that seeks to change America's start year in multiple senses, along with a bunch of hard to articulate abstractions and sweeping claims – there's no sense in which they could claim to be impartial at this point, especially since they're explicitly politically partisan. The first cluster of sources also includes a socialist newspaper. In what sense are they "reliable" on political issues? Partisans are inherently unreliable in evaluating their adversaries – is this controversial?
The claims themselves are not tractable anyway, so the biased sources are just sort of a symptom. If we're saying "significant" and "often" without any objective standards, it doesn't matter if we have (leftist) sources that make those ambiguous smears. That's not anything.
As far as what's leftist or not, note that it's common for radical leftists to deny that something is leftist (e.g. a leftist media outlet), because it's not very leftist *to them*. That's standard relativity / extremism dynamics. I'm using leftist to simply mean left of center, not a radical's sense of "true" or "real" leftists.
This article is not a serious encyclopedic treatment. It's an amazing artifact, and couldn't be more biased. The smears, the predominant weasily use of "far-right" instead of just "right", the absence of any similar instances of "far-left" (just "left-leaning" and similar), the vague guilt by association terms like "significant" to mean maybe 0.01% of users, the use of exclusively leftist and far-left sources, etc. It's a very bad sign that this article could ever be live for more than a minute. It's an awful, wildly unethical, and unscholarly artifact. BlueSingularity ( talk) 05:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
BlueSingularity, stop the edit warring and seek consensus here. Your edit has been reverted because we could not find a basis for it in your provided source. Maybe it's there, so please provide the exact words in the source so we can verify and evaluate it. -- Valjean ( talk) 18:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
There's three discussions here going on about how this wiki article is misleading, and all about the same lines. Nobody is making any complaint about the content, they are making a complaint about the first lines of the article. The fact that certain people and groups use the service doesn't tell me what it is, what it does, how it's used, or what it's used for. All it tells me is that the people who wrote it are not in favor of certain groups and figures. If you're not going to make it a neutral article then at least put a bias warning at the top of the article. It's the decent thing to do since the editors are being so stubborn about the integrity and neutrality of this article, and this is coming from someone who is left leaning. 74.205.137.219 ( talk) 20:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk)
21:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
The false accusations that were used to deplatform Parler were debunked by the Justice Department. This should be clarified in the article, that the accusations were false, and that a DOJ investigation found that Facebook, not Parler, was the platform most widely used to co-ordinate the storming of the Capitol. [84] Polygraphics ( talk) 11:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
I think people need to read wp:soap and wp:forum. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps, then, you should propose some actual text in the form of "change X to Y" or "insert X", supported by citations to reliable sources. Simply crying "false!" doesn't work here. Make a suggestion so we can evaluate it. You are the one who wants something changed, so the burden is on you to propose how that should be done, and provide reliable sources to back it up. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 04:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Parler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the first paragraph of the page it reads:
Parler (/ˈpɑːrlər/) is an American alt-tech microblogging and social networking service associated with Donald Trump supporters, conservatives, conspiracy theorists, and far-right extremists.[9][10][11][12][13] Posts on the service often contain far-right content,[19] antisemitism,[26] and conspiracy theories such as QAnon.[30] Journalists have described Parler as an alt-tech alternative to Twitter, and users include those banned from mainstream social networks or who oppose their moderation policies.[9][12][31][13]
Should read something like:
Parler (/ˈpɑːrlər/) is an American alt-tech microblogging and social networking service commonly associated with Donald Trump supporters and conservatives. Journalists have described Parler as an alternative to Twitter, and users include those from other mainstream social networks who have been banned or oppose their moderation policies.[9][12][31][13]
This would better reflect the tone and stance of neutrality that wikipedia is meant to hold, and while certain groups may use parler, parler was not specifically designed for those groups, and so the use of parler should be noted on those group's respectve wikipedia pages and not the parler main page. To list some groups who use parler on the parler page would require that all groups be listed, wich is impossible due to the large volume of them.
Along with some basic grammar stuff.
Thank you. Supremosjr ( talk) 23:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk)
00:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Source: NPOV
Now that Parler is back in the stores, it demonstrates that there is a shift in their policies and moderation. All the sourcing on the lead paragraph is becoming outdated and should be for the body of the wiki page, not the lead. Specifically "Posts on the service often contain far-right content, antisemitism, and conspiracy theories such as QAnon." If consensus doesn't agree, I think it should be noted in the lead this is past tense and there have been changes more recently. Thoughts? Canadianr0ckstar2000 ( talk) 16:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Has not brought it, has not paid an penny for it, and may yet pull out. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:40, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Ye has had a reversal of fortune recently [85] so I wondered if there had been any update about this Parler deal. I don't see one in the article and haven't noticed one in news reporting, but maybe others here are paying more attention than I am. Also, recent management changes at Twitter might make its expats at Parler more willing to re-engage. [86] It will be interesting to find out what happens. Added: Ye himself has been reinstated on Twitter. [87] 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA ( talk) 19:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
According to The Verge Parler has been trying for weeks to make the Kanye deal happen, also Candace Owens played a larger role that should be reflected in the article. https://www.theverge.com/2022/10/18/23410816/kanye-parler-acquisition-business-history-free-speech-spam -- jonas ( talk) 19:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Parler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the second para, where there is the discussion on Parler's deplatforming, it may be useful to cite this recent study: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4232871
This paper suggests that some of the most entrenched Parler users moved on to Telegram where they become worse. It also suggests that despite coming back online in February 2021, Parler couldn't really regain the original momentum. 157.38.222.172 ( talk) 08:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
I've removed the Template:Update. It's been a few months. If new sources exist, please cite them or propose them. If such sources don't exist, the template isn't going to help much. Grayfell ( talk) 02:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Parler has been acquired and shutdown as of 14/4/23.
Article needs amending to reflect this. Element58.933 ( talk) 14:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Starboard's announcement uses the words "While the Parler app as it is currently constituted will be pulled down from operation to undergo a strategic assessment..." A "strategic assessment" sounds like something that would take more than a few days -- weeks or even months come to mind for a detailed assessment of something on that scale. It's really not clear why you would have to turn it off in order to make that assessment; if you own and operate the system you can inspect the system at your leisure while it's running, or take a snapshot and inspect that. — The Anome ( talk) 10:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
It's now been more than a month since the shutdown, and Parler is still down; requests to https://parler.com/ today are currently giving "503 Service Unavailable". At what point does "inactive" become "defunct"? Three months? Six months? A year? — The Anome ( talk) 15:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Parler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It would be a great idea to declare Parler DEFUNCT. Going on parler.com does not pull up anything and 3 months have passed since Parler shut down. It's very likely Parler will not be revived. 2603:8000:6001:8E45:F103:C524:618B:AB85 ( talk) 21:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Parler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Parler is back on since 22 Nov 2023, with its apex domain redirecting to the blog.parler.com subdomain with a 301 Permanent Redirect.
Reference for the date: https://web.archive.org/web/20231120052420/https://parler.com/ Matti Schneider ( talk) 09:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Parler.com now redirects to blog.parler.com, which looks like a news aggregator. I couldn't find any statement about the future, if any, of the social network. -- Mahlerite ( talk) 17:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Why do you state in the article that Parler is down while it is not? What we are dealing with here is disinformation. 37.30.122.247 ( talk) 15:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)