Parler thread
- Thread starter Dusty
- Start date
Which is exactly why the government doesn't need to regulate Twitter, Google, etc. If people are fed up with the policies of those services, they have many alternatives to choose from.
If we did have regulations, they would apply to the alternative services also, at least once they started to gain traction.
I think that focusing on the Alexa rank may give a too optimistic view of the degree to which these substitute social media platforms are effectively combating the big, left-leaning platforms. In absolute terms, Twitter probably gets tens of thousands or more times traffic/time on site than these substitute platforms (taking an educated guess on the multiple).
Even if Parler's traffic grows by 10 times, it's a long way to even be a small thorn in Twitter's side. I think Twitter/Facebook/Googles' first-mover advantage will be insurmountable (but I hope I'm wrong).
If it ain't open source, it ain't even humane or ethical. If it ain't both open source and decentralized, then it ain't a solution, it ain't an option, and I ain't touching it.
As a general rule of thumb, if you don't at the very least know your admin personally, that should be a big red flag for you.
I think we've been burnt too many times by unethical services, we better not make the mistake of choosing something that isn't really fundamentally different. From the looks of things, the free-speechiness of parler is entirely dependent on the ideology of its admin. If he has a change of heart and suddenly decides censorship is ok, you're screwed. Wouldn't it be better to choose a platform that guarantees free speech by the very structure of the system? You look at something like LBRY or the Fediverse or Matrix or even Email ffs... you can't be censored on any of those systems, because you can set up your own email/matrix/fediverse server any time, or ask your nerdy little bro to set one up for you, or find someone you know who already has a server. And then lbry actually just uses a blockchain (history can't be redacted). Does parler offer any of these things? Can I make my own parler server? Doesn't seem like it. Sounds like parler is just a big fat mistake. I don't want to be mean about it, because they might come around on that stuff, eventually, years down the road. I was mean about gab for a while, and eventually they came around, and made me feel bad about all of that. Now gab is just another node in the fediverse, and anyone can run their own gab server. The preservation of free speech on Gab no longer depends on Torba's ideology— just run your own server lol. That's cool stuff; Gab is pretty cool now. It's still full of boomers, but it's pretty cool. But yeah, parler is not the one. It's not the promised land. It doesn't even look enticing at all. Don't switch to parler. Don't spend any time on parler at all. It's not worth your time. And worse case scenario, it only exists to divert attention from the real twitter alternatives like pleroma and the like. Y'all would be better off joining https://shitposter.club or https://freespeechextremist.com or something lol.
As a general rule of thumb, if you don't at the very least know your admin personally, that should be a big red flag for you.
I think we've been burnt too many times by unethical services, we better not make the mistake of choosing something that isn't really fundamentally different. From the looks of things, the free-speechiness of parler is entirely dependent on the ideology of its admin. If he has a change of heart and suddenly decides censorship is ok, you're screwed. Wouldn't it be better to choose a platform that guarantees free speech by the very structure of the system? You look at something like LBRY or the Fediverse or Matrix or even Email ffs... you can't be censored on any of those systems, because you can set up your own email/matrix/fediverse server any time, or ask your nerdy little bro to set one up for you, or find someone you know who already has a server. And then lbry actually just uses a blockchain (history can't be redacted). Does parler offer any of these things? Can I make my own parler server? Doesn't seem like it. Sounds like parler is just a big fat mistake. I don't want to be mean about it, because they might come around on that stuff, eventually, years down the road. I was mean about gab for a while, and eventually they came around, and made me feel bad about all of that. Now gab is just another node in the fediverse, and anyone can run their own gab server. The preservation of free speech on Gab no longer depends on Torba's ideology— just run your own server lol. That's cool stuff; Gab is pretty cool now. It's still full of boomers, but it's pretty cool. But yeah, parler is not the one. It's not the promised land. It doesn't even look enticing at all. Don't switch to parler. Don't spend any time on parler at all. It's not worth your time. And worse case scenario, it only exists to divert attention from the real twitter alternatives like pleroma and the like. Y'all would be better off joining https://shitposter.club or https://freespeechextremist.com or something lol.
If I want to follow on Parler I need an account.
If I want to create an account I'm asked for my phone number.
Result: It sucks twice!
IMO Gab is the better choice.
I can read posts without having an account
and if I want to register with them I'm not asked for my phone number.
If I want to create an account I'm asked for my phone number.
Result: It sucks twice!
IMO Gab is the better choice.
I can read posts without having an account
and if I want to register with them I'm not asked for my phone number.
It will be interesting to see whether this platform becomes a means to red-pill people at the center right or it becomes a gatekeeping platform to keep centrists on the plantation.
As usual, if they develop a record of purging things like 5,999,999 or 13/50 then you'll know it's a deep state plantation.
As usual, if they develop a record of purging things like 5,999,999 or 13/50 then you'll know it's a deep state plantation.
What do people get out of Twitter (or alternatives)?
A way to organize? Doubtful. It's not even close to the best for local organizing. You can organize 'globally' but what exactly are your organizing?
Wisdom? Doubtful. Wisdom has a tendency to stick around, not get buried in an endless scrolling timeline.
Information? Definitely. But actionable information? Doubtful. What are you learning there that is affecting your actions? Well, actions other than tweeting I mean.
Entertainment? Definitely. But do we need more of it or less?
Twitter and other platforms like this cater to our worst base instincts - at best it is harmless fun, but it almost never stays there. At worst it's a narcissist-making machine. It's not just selfies that give narcissistic supply - for intellectual types, 'takes' and the likes and retweets serve the exact same function; not to mention the 'fights' that never enlighten or convince anyone, they just suck you into an intellectual and spiritual black hole.
There is nothing good to be gained in participating, regardless of how many race statistics and media representation graphs you can post.
A way to organize? Doubtful. It's not even close to the best for local organizing. You can organize 'globally' but what exactly are your organizing?
Wisdom? Doubtful. Wisdom has a tendency to stick around, not get buried in an endless scrolling timeline.
Information? Definitely. But actionable information? Doubtful. What are you learning there that is affecting your actions? Well, actions other than tweeting I mean.
Entertainment? Definitely. But do we need more of it or less?
Twitter and other platforms like this cater to our worst base instincts - at best it is harmless fun, but it almost never stays there. At worst it's a narcissist-making machine. It's not just selfies that give narcissistic supply - for intellectual types, 'takes' and the likes and retweets serve the exact same function; not to mention the 'fights' that never enlighten or convince anyone, they just suck you into an intellectual and spiritual black hole.
There is nothing good to be gained in participating, regardless of how many race statistics and media representation graphs you can post.
Last edited:
I disagree with that. One of the reasons the soviets rolled the masses up so easily was because there was no larger awareness of what was going on at the time. One day a dozen trucks full of soldiers simply rolled into your village and started rounding up dissidents at gunpoint. Then it happened to the next village and the next, one by one.
Social media is getting more and more heavily curated but it still gives people a window into the larger forces working against them. Prior to its advent it was a handful of bloggers and prior to that we only saw what the MSM wanted us to see.
Like all things, moderation and responsible use is important. But social media is likely going to be our first point of contact with enemy movements for the time being and as such it plays a valuable role.
Social media is getting more and more heavily curated but it still gives people a window into the larger forces working against them. Prior to its advent it was a handful of bloggers and prior to that we only saw what the MSM wanted us to see.
Like all things, moderation and responsible use is important. But social media is likely going to be our first point of contact with enemy movements for the time being and as such it plays a valuable role.
As I said, it does give you information. What are we to do with that information? Is it propelling us to act in any meaningful way? I don't consider voting meaningful, mind you. If the soldiers come and you know they are coming in advance, what exactly changes? Do we have the means to fight them? Does knowing in advance really make a difference? I doubt the soviet peasants would have been able to resist the oligarch-funded revolutionaries even if they had a head start.
And yes, moderation and responsible use is important. But tools aren't neutral, even if designed to be. But social media is not even in that category. It was specifically designed for irresponsible and immoderate use - from the colors of notifications to the endless scrolling wall. This is not conjecture, it is now admitted (and sometimes regretted) by its designers.
And yes, moderation and responsible use is important. But tools aren't neutral, even if designed to be. But social media is not even in that category. It was specifically designed for irresponsible and immoderate use - from the colors of notifications to the endless scrolling wall. This is not conjecture, it is now admitted (and sometimes regretted) by its designers.
Hm ... you don't like Likes?
My mentioning of villages being gobbled up by soviet troops was obviously clumsy. What I meant was that out of perhaps 10,000 villages, if 50 of them reported being attacked by soviet troops one week and 50 more reported the same thing the week after that then at some point (conjecture) folks would have started laying ambushes on the roads.
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn , The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956
For perhaps the first time in history the cards are being played face-out and we can track the evolution of the conflict in real-time. People are waking up and radicalizing against the threats to their fellow man due in no small part to what sneaks through the Left wing filters on social media.
As they say. If we were powerless then their propaganda would not be necessary.
Regarding Gab vs. Parler difference...
Gab doesn't require an account since it is public and out in the open. One can view tweets and/or conversations by PNN, Heartiste, etc. without a Gab account.
When I tried to access Roosh's or Paul Joseph Watson's Parler link, it redirects me to another page saying that a Parler account is required to access and view their page's tweets.
Gab doesn't require an account since it is public and out in the open. One can view tweets and/or conversations by PNN, Heartiste, etc. without a Gab account.
When I tried to access Roosh's or Paul Joseph Watson's Parler link, it redirects me to another page saying that a Parler account is required to access and view their page's tweets.
Last edited:
Doesn't that basically make it a glorified forum? Worse, actually. A lot of forums can be viewed at least in part without a membership.
If the whole thing is walled off from the outside world then doesn't that defeat the whole purpose?
"Roosh posted something about that issue, I'll embed his parler post on the thread... oh wait..."
If the whole thing is walled off from the outside world then doesn't that defeat the whole purpose?
"Roosh posted something about that issue, I'll embed his parler post on the thread... oh wait..."
@acco Yes, I don't like likes.
Perhaps if the Russian peasants had the awareness they would have been able to do something. But that awareness comes at a cost. The soviets of the future, that future that provides us with great means of communication, will be much harder to fight against, in the same proportion as our increased means of seeing them coming.
The increase in our power (through having access to information) doesn't happen in a vacuum. It is not telling the whole story to simply say that we now have a means to disseminate information about hostile forces and that gives us an advantage we didn't have before. Because it is not only us using these means. Their benefits are not only for us, but for them too (easier tracking of everyone, calculation of how many 'dissidents' exist, which ones are more dangerous to the system and so on). But even beyond that, it is a means that, while bringing benefits, it doesn't bring them alone. It brings a host of problems along with the benefits (such as psychological problems and disconnection from the real world). Even people who are acutely aware of the pitfalls, like I am, end up falling on the same trap, succumbing to the same weaknesses that social media was designed to exploit - I realized the only real solution was deleting them. While people are jerking around on social media playing politics (and it is an enormous time-suck), they are not building something local, in the real world, or learning a real skill or even just spending time with loved ones - all better alternatives than the meager informational benefits it can bring. Besides, by having links to certain sources, without logging in, you can have the informational benefits without any of the negatives. And this is what I do. I have some accounts I visit once a week to take the pulse, and that's it.
I suppose our disagreement comes down not really to social media, but to the ultimate question: is it possible to overthrow the system, take control of it, fight against it? I don't believe it is, so I think coordinating some kind of rebellion is pointless at best. I also think the quality of our 'rebels' is very weak. I think I have alluded to this before: the Left believes in hierarchy (even if they say they don't) and acts accordingly, but the Right truly buys the equality myth and so is incapable of any coherent organization. And we can blame the enemy all we want, but in Africa and in India, in Mexico or in Southeast Asia, some level of resistance to the industrial juggernaut in all its tentacles still exists. The West is a conquered people primarily in spirit, not just in its institutions. We have no leaders because we have a people incapable of following (except on social media of course). That has become our only reality.
I think the only way to win this battle is not to fight, something I have said before here. I truly believe the best, and really only beneficial, strategy is for small communities to disengage and become as self sufficient as possible. At worst, it will provide the people who do it a small window of breathing space, a small time of freedom and stability before the storm troopers arrive to take over completely; at best, it will provide the basis to build something and survive the collapse.
Perhaps if the Russian peasants had the awareness they would have been able to do something. But that awareness comes at a cost. The soviets of the future, that future that provides us with great means of communication, will be much harder to fight against, in the same proportion as our increased means of seeing them coming.
The increase in our power (through having access to information) doesn't happen in a vacuum. It is not telling the whole story to simply say that we now have a means to disseminate information about hostile forces and that gives us an advantage we didn't have before. Because it is not only us using these means. Their benefits are not only for us, but for them too (easier tracking of everyone, calculation of how many 'dissidents' exist, which ones are more dangerous to the system and so on). But even beyond that, it is a means that, while bringing benefits, it doesn't bring them alone. It brings a host of problems along with the benefits (such as psychological problems and disconnection from the real world). Even people who are acutely aware of the pitfalls, like I am, end up falling on the same trap, succumbing to the same weaknesses that social media was designed to exploit - I realized the only real solution was deleting them. While people are jerking around on social media playing politics (and it is an enormous time-suck), they are not building something local, in the real world, or learning a real skill or even just spending time with loved ones - all better alternatives than the meager informational benefits it can bring. Besides, by having links to certain sources, without logging in, you can have the informational benefits without any of the negatives. And this is what I do. I have some accounts I visit once a week to take the pulse, and that's it.
I suppose our disagreement comes down not really to social media, but to the ultimate question: is it possible to overthrow the system, take control of it, fight against it? I don't believe it is, so I think coordinating some kind of rebellion is pointless at best. I also think the quality of our 'rebels' is very weak. I think I have alluded to this before: the Left believes in hierarchy (even if they say they don't) and acts accordingly, but the Right truly buys the equality myth and so is incapable of any coherent organization. And we can blame the enemy all we want, but in Africa and in India, in Mexico or in Southeast Asia, some level of resistance to the industrial juggernaut in all its tentacles still exists. The West is a conquered people primarily in spirit, not just in its institutions. We have no leaders because we have a people incapable of following (except on social media of course). That has become our only reality.
I think the only way to win this battle is not to fight, something I have said before here. I truly believe the best, and really only beneficial, strategy is for small communities to disengage and become as self sufficient as possible. At worst, it will provide the people who do it a small window of breathing space, a small time of freedom and stability before the storm troopers arrive to take over completely; at best, it will provide the basis to build something and survive the collapse.
Lets go full conspiracy and suppose that Parler is an operation to "kettle" conservatives like they do in a riot. Round everyone up on a closed platform which requires a phone number, flag everyone on that plaform as a racist.
Furthermore, the closed nature of the platform makes it susceptible to manipulation. For example, someone photoshops a screenshot of a parler 'tweet' to make it seem like the poster committed a thought crime...the truth can then be only be verified by people with Parler accounts, which is the minority.
This topic of how to construct a more bulletproof free speech platform is of interest.
VD has said that many open source entities like Linux have adopted SJW-influenced codes of conduct. Can poison pills be put in these products or can they cause legal trouble for people deploying the product to their own servers who don't conform to their ideology? This isn't a leading question; it's asked out of ignorance.
And of course, on a local server you have your own internet provider, the domain registrar, etc. SJWs will attack every link in the chain in their attempts to stamp out effective free speech.
I'm not clear on who runs Parler. For someone else who mentioned it... Like Telegram, Parler does require a phone number to sign up, but it doesn't have to be a mobile number. Just some phone number they can call to give you a code that you type in during registration. Still, it is another link to you if you want to remain anonymous.
I mixed up phone number and mobile number, it's the same to me.
Yes, same pain with telegram.
Last edited:
On the other hand, if it weren't for the dispersal of this information then to what extent would you still be on the blue pill?
Maybe you're right that say 90% detachment is probably a good idea. I could stand to spend a lot less time on this forum myself for example. But we all got here somehow, and others are in the infancy of their own awakening.
I'll admit the balance between red-pilling people you'll never meet and delivering meals to the local old folks is an easy one to find yourself on the wrong side of.
I think trying to do anything activism-wise on Twitter, Parlor, Gab, ect... this is a waste of time. Youtube is maybe a step up since you can at least see the person and know they're real. You have to have conversations with people in real life. That's how relationships are built.
Online, anonymous, this is a garbage bin... Nothing will be achieved anonymously.
Unfortunately, this has been lost with the younger folks. They think doing everything online is the way to go. I think this will backfire. Yes, we need to use the Internet to connect to people, but the goal should be implicitly local - to get people together.
When I was 20 I was knocking on doors and having conversations with people in my neighborhood. I don't know if we are "there" yet, but it's interesting how much things diverged from reality. Reality now is 1% of the people on either side of the issues who tweet about it. Most people are moderate actually, the silent majority.
Online, anonymous, this is a garbage bin... Nothing will be achieved anonymously.
Unfortunately, this has been lost with the younger folks. They think doing everything online is the way to go. I think this will backfire. Yes, we need to use the Internet to connect to people, but the goal should be implicitly local - to get people together.
When I was 20 I was knocking on doors and having conversations with people in my neighborhood. I don't know if we are "there" yet, but it's interesting how much things diverged from reality. Reality now is 1% of the people on either side of the issues who tweet about it. Most people are moderate actually, the silent majority.
