Parler is not a "right-wing" social media app. That is patently false. Parler is a free speech app. It was and is populated by conservatives and libertarians, but welcomes all viewpoints, including those left of center. It was never designed or marketed to be a right-wing social media app.
The same Parler that was founded by a dude who married a Russian asset, then received a massive influx of users thanks to far right influencers like Candace Owens and Cassandra Fairbanks and later myriad far right personalities and commenters, worked with right wing operative Jesse Benton (who was convicted of election finance violations), the shell parent company of which, NDMASCENDANT LLC was filed by Greenberg Traurig, LLP which was Rudy Giuliani’s former firm who happened to be traveling in Russia and the region at the time Parler was founded in late 2018, and is funded by the very prominent conservative financier Rebekah Mercer who got Steve Bannon in the White House?
Even ignoring all that, since Maltze was fired, the company is in the hands of Mercer, right-wing British operative Matthew Richardson, and interim CEO Mark Meckler who is a well known right-wing activist who co-founded the Tea Party Patriots and is president and CEO of the Convention of States Foundation and its partner Convention of States Action, organizations pushing for a convention to radically rewrite the fucking Constitution. The leadership is currently, literally by definition, far right-wing.
If you don't think it's a "right wing" site/app, you're ether a complete moron or being willfully obtuse.
I have not seen evidence his wife is a "Russian asset." She is Russian, and the couple traveled extensively throughout Europe and Russia. Regardless, you bring this up for the same reason the media does: Linking Parler, the right and Trump to Russia. It never ends.
You have established that Parler is run by right-wing figures. I never said it wasn't (I know the history of its founders and backers). It's also populated with right-wingers and libertarians in terms of membership. My point is that it was not promoted that way. It was promoted to conservatives, many of whom had been banned or shadow banned from other platforms.
I'd ask you not to repeat the personal attacks and name calling. That's how these threads get shut down. I don't consider Parler a "right wing" app. That opinion is not going to change unless I see it promoted as such, or the facts change. Unlike many on the left, I am fine with disagreement. You're free to make your case and consider it whatever you want. I'm not going to the mat over this, as I've been on Parler and don't find it particularly appealing.
That's because Parler, the right, and Trump all have myriad connections to Russia, both directly and indirectly. There's no clear proof that Alina is a Russian agent, but I'd be surprised if she wasn't. She as on a "road trip" across the US which sounds a LOT like the road trip taken by Anna Bogacheva who was indicted by Mueller for election interference. They were married in a government facility overseen by Alina’s mother, Gulnara Mukhutdinova, who is is a longtime government functionary, and Alina’s grandmother was an “Honored Builder of Russia” during Soviet times. So, ¯\(°_o)/¯ but it sure is fishy, especially when you factor in the Giuliani firm and his travel to Russia around that exact same time of its formation. Aside from all that, I don't think that's the focus here.
It IS a right wing site. Maybe it wasn't "promoted that way" and Maltze had legit motivations for purely free speech reasons, but that's certainly not what it became, or is aiming to be now. It's overrun with Qanon freaks, seditionist traitors, Russian trolls, and yes "conservative" voices who are too shittily behaved to be allowed on other sites. It doesn't matter what the marketing or original intention was, it is what it is. If it walks like a duck, etc.
Those are the facts, you can ignore them all you want because you've drank enough of the Kool Aid that you think Democrats are the enemy and Trump isn't a narcissist (are you kidding me?) but rational people will call it like they see it.
Parler is not a "right-wing" social media app. That is patently false. Parler is a free speech app. It was and is populated by conservatives and libertarians, but welcomes all viewpoints, including those left of center. It was never designed or marketed to be a right-wing social media app.
The same Parler that was founded by a dude who married a Russian asset, then received a massive influx of users thanks to far right influencers like Candace Owens and Cassandra Fairbanks and later myriad far right personalities and commenters, worked with right wing operative Jesse Benton (who was convicted of election finance violations), the shell parent company of which, NDMASCENDANT LLC was filed by Greenberg Traurig, LLP which was Rudy Giuliani’s former firm who happened to be traveling in Russia and the region at the time Parler was founded in late 2018, and is funded by the very prominent conservative financier Rebekah Mercer who got Steve Bannon in the White House?
Even ignoring all that, since Maltze was fired, the company is in the hands of Mercer, right-wing British operative Matthew Richardson, and interim CEO Mark Meckler who is a well known right-wing activist who co-founded the Tea Party Patriots and is president and CEO of the Convention of States Foundation and its partner Convention of States Action, organizations pushing for a convention to radically rewrite the fucking Constitution. The leadership is currently, literally by definition, far right-wing.
If you don't think it's a "right wing" site/app, you're ether a complete moron or being willfully obtuse.
I have not seen evidence his wife is a "Russian asset." She is Russian, and the couple traveled extensively throughout Europe and Russia. Regardless, you bring this up for the same reason the media does: Linking Parler, the right and Trump to Russia. It never ends.
You have established that Parler is run by right-wing figures. I never said it wasn't (I know the history of its founders and backers). It's also populated with right-wingers and libertarians in terms of membership. My point is that it was not promoted that way. It was promoted to conservatives, many of whom had been banned or shadow banned from other platforms.
I'd ask you not to repeat the personal attacks and name calling. That's how these threads get shut down. I don't consider Parler a "right wing" app. That opinion is not going to change unless I see it promoted as such, or the facts change. Unlike many on the left, I am fine with disagreement. You're free to make your case and consider it whatever you want. I'm not going to the mat over this, as I've been on Parler and don't find it particularly appealing.
That's because Parler, the right, and Trump all have myriad connections to Russia, both directly and indirectly. There's no clear proof that Alina is a Russian agent, but I'd be surprised if she wasn't. She as on a "road trip" across the US which sounds a LOT like the road trip taken by Anna Bogacheva who was indicted by Mueller for election interference. They were married in a government facility overseen by Alina’s mother, Gulnara Mukhutdinova, who is is a longtime government functionary, and Alina’s grandmother was an “Honored Builder of Russia” during Soviet times. So, ¯\(°_o)/¯ but it sure is fishy, especially when you factor in the Giuliani firm and his travel to Russia around that exact same time of its formation. Aside from all that, I don't think that's the focus here.
It IS a right wing site. Maybe it wasn't "promoted that way" and Maltze had legit motivations for purely free speech reasons, but that's certainly not what it became, or is aiming to be now. It's overrun with Qanon freaks, seditionist traitors, Russian trolls, and yes "conservative" voices who are too shittily behaved to be allowed on other sites. It doesn't matter what the marketing or original intention was, it is what it is. If it walks like a duck, etc.
Those are the facts, you can ignore them all you want because you've drank enough of the Kool Aid that you think Democrats are the enemy and Trump isn't a narcissist (are you kidding me?) but rational people will call it like they see it.
Parler is a "free speech site" in the same sense that FoxNews is "Fair and Balanced." Both are disingenuous tag lines for "alternative fact" incubators, meant to reassure a far right audience that they're the normal ones. It's clearly quite effective.
She is a "dinosaur" only in the sense that she parted ways with Trump following his incitement of an insurrection
Exactly this is conveniently overlooked.. She was perfectly fine until quotes like this.
"The 2020 presidential election was not stolen. Anyone who claims it was is spreading THE BIG LIE, turning their back on the rule of law, and poisoning our democratic system."
"I will not sit back and watch in silence while others lead our party
down a path that abandons the rule of law and joins the former
president’s crusade to undermine our democracy,”
To try and say her ousting wasn't because of her departure from the former president and non support of the big lie is absolutely bullshit. sdw2001 come on man stop this crap.
Not sure what I'm supposed to stop. Obviously she was ousted because she had lost support. She lost support by voting to impeach and by verbally going on the war path against Trump. Her ouster was "because of Trump" in that sense. The party largely still supports him (according to polling) and she wasn't going to be able to continue in leadership without that support. Where I disagree is that the GOP did it in some sort of golden calf-worshipping exercise, or if they had taken Orange General Zod's hand and sworn internal loyalty.
That's because Parler, the right, and Trump all have myriad connections to Russia, both directly and indirectly.
LOL. You're still on about this. Please, tell me about the "direct and indirect" connections to Russia. Then please illustrate how those connections are illegal or even improper. Finally, please demonstrate how they are 1/10th as significant as Democratic politicians connections. Psssst: There are Russians all over the place. The media has done a great job making them the boogeyman.
There's no clear proof that Alina is a Russian agent, but I'd be surprised if she wasn't. She as on a "road trip" across the US which sounds a LOT like the road trip taken by Anna Bogacheva who was indicted by Mueller for election interference. They were married in a government facility overseen by Alina’s mother, Gulnara Mukhutdinova, who is is a longtime government functionary, and Alina’s grandmother was an “Honored Builder of Russia” during Soviet times. So, ¯\(°_o)/¯ but it sure is fishy, especially when you factor in the Giuliani firm and his travel to Russia around that exact same time of its formation. Aside from all that, I don't think that's the focus here.
So you're just making it up because it sounds plausible and fits your world view. Got it.
It IS a right wing site. Maybe it wasn't "promoted that way" and Maltze had legit motivations for purely free speech reasons, but that's certainly not what it became, or is aiming to be now. It's overrun with Qanon freaks, seditionist traitors, Russian trolls, and yes "conservative" voices who are too shittily behaved to be allowed on other sites. It doesn't matter what the marketing or original intention was, it is what it is. If it walks like a duck, etc.
How do you know what it's aiming to be? Could you provide some evidence (quotes, marketing materials, etc) to support that? And yes, all of those groups are on Parler. There are also a lot of mainstream people and those who have done nothing wrong on other sites, yet were still booted for sharing the wrong opinion. You really don't know about what the platforms are doing, do you? As we speak, Facebook is testing an algorithm on 1.5% of its users (nearly 3 million accounts) that gives them a "vaccine hesitancy score" based on their comments regarding Covid vaccines. Depending on score, they then de-boost posts, limit visibility or even remove posts. This kind of thing has been going on for years. But you're probably right...it's just conservative nut jobs that were banned for their "sh*tty behavior."
Those are the facts, you can ignore them all you want because you've drank enough of the Kool Aid that you think Democrats are the enemy and Trump isn't a narcissist (are you kidding me?) but rational people will call it like they see it.
I'm not sure what Kool-Aid you're referring to, though as an educated person with actual political experience myself, I'm pretty confident in my judgement on these issues. I'm also comfortable with disagreement. Like many others I encounter who are more to the Left, that doesn't seem to be the case with you. I have a different opinion, so I must "irrational" or just a moron. I realize we disagree on the definition of "right wing site" and whether or not Trump is a textbook narcissist in real life. That's fine...I can see your points even if I ultimately disagree. It would be nice if you took that approach. Doing so would be...rational. 😉
Parler is a "free speech site" in the same sense that FoxNews is "Fair and Balanced." Both are disingenuous tag lines for "alternative fact" incubators, meant to reassure a far right audience that they're the normal ones. It's clearly quite effective.
Bringing up Fox News is the next Godwin's Law.
The network dropped "Fair and Balanced" four years ago. I used to watch a lot of Fox News (very little now), from news coverage to opinion shows. The opinion shows are obviously conservative, though they do bring on quite a few liberal guests and have permanent panel members who are left of center. Their news operation was never that far right. It leaned right for years, especially compared to what MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN became. But there has been a shift towards the middle or even leaning left over the past 5 years in their news coverage. Coupled with their disastrous election night coverage, conservatives have fled the network in droves. Either way, I think you'd be hard pressed to show that FNC is less factually accurate than their competitors.
Do me a favor. Search "Parler" and see what the top result is. For me it is "Parler Free Speech Network." Go to their home page and tell me what you see. Regardless of how many loons are on it, it's not marketed or pushed as a right wing platform.
Parler is a "free speech site" in the same sense that FoxNews is "Fair and Balanced." Both are disingenuous tag lines for "alternative fact" incubators, meant to reassure a far right audience that they're the normal ones. It's clearly quite effective.
Bringing up Fox News is the next Godwin's Law.
The network dropped "Fair and Balanced" four years ago. I used to watch a lot of Fox News (very little now), from news coverage to opinion shows. The opinion shows are obviously conservative, though they do bring on quite a few liberal guests and have permanent panel members who are left of center. Their news operation was never that far right. It leaned right for years, especially compared to what MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN became. But there has been a shift towards the middle or even leaning left over the past 5 years in their news coverage. Coupled with their disastrous election night coverage, conservatives have fled the network in droves. Either way, I think you'd be hard pressed to show that FNC is less factually accurate than their competitors.
Do me a favor. Search "Parler" and see what the top result is. For me it is "Parler Free Speech Network." Go to their home page and tell me what you see. Regardless of how many loons are on it, it's not marketed or pushed as a right wing platform.
You're just proving my point. Right-wing platforms market themselves as the political center, fair and balanced, free speech and whatever, to reassure their hard-right target audience with the complete lie that it's actually the normal, level-headed political center, under siege by leftist goons everywhere. You are the target audience, and you continue making statements here that are either bone-dry performance art or demonstrate that you obliviously buy the schtick these companies use to reassure you that you're the normal one. Fox News didn't move left, they just hit some bumps in the road where reality-based defamation lawsuits were going to cost them money, so they dropped and/or modified some "alternate fact" narratives that were going to hurt their bottom line. So you and others looked for other media that would continue to more brazenly tell you what you want to hear, and like you did with Liz Cheney, doubled down on a false narrative while rationalizing that those who won't are now "RINOs."
People outside the conservative media bubble can see all this ridiculousness. We'd just write it off as weird or even pathetically funny and move on if it wasn't for the fact that the very real side effect of this is corrosion of actual political discourse to the point of nearly destroying our democracy. So we can't just ignore it and let it go, which is why I keep replying to your attempts to disseminate false information here. You're welcome to your own personal fantasy world, but you don't get to use it to redefine reality for the rest of us. Sorry.
Parler is a "free speech site" in the same sense that FoxNews is "Fair and Balanced." Both are disingenuous tag lines for "alternative fact" incubators, meant to reassure a far right audience that they're the normal ones. It's clearly quite effective.
Bringing up Fox News is the next Godwin's Law.
The network dropped "Fair and Balanced" four years ago. I used to watch a lot of Fox News (very little now), from news coverage to opinion shows. The opinion shows are obviously conservative, though they do bring on quite a few liberal guests and have permanent panel members who are left of center. Their news operation was never that far right. It leaned right for years, especially compared to what MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN became. But there has been a shift towards the middle or even leaning left over the past 5 years in their news coverage. Coupled with their disastrous election night coverage, conservatives have fled the network in droves. Either way, I think you'd be hard pressed to show that FNC is less factually accurate than their competitors.
Do me a favor. Search "Parler" and see what the top result is. For me it is "Parler Free Speech Network." Go to their home page and tell me what you see. Regardless of how many loons are on it, it's not marketed or pushed as a right wing platform.
You're just proving my point. Right-wing platforms market themselves as the political center, fair and balanced, free speech and whatever, to reassure their hard-right target audience with the complete lie that it's actually the normal, level-headed political center, under siege by leftist goons everywhere. You are the target audience, and you continue making statements here that are either bone-dry performance art or demonstrate that you obliviously buy the schtick these companies use to reassure you that you're the normal one. Fox News didn't move left, they just hit some bumps in the road where reality-based defamation lawsuits were going to cost them money, so they dropped and/or modified some "alternate fact" narratives that were going to hurt their bottom line. So you and others looked for other media that would continue to more brazenly tell you what you want to hear, and like you did with Liz Cheney, doubled down on a false narrative while rationalizing that those who won't are now "RINOs."
People outside the conservative media bubble can see all this ridiculousness. We'd just write it off as weird or even pathetically funny and move on if it wasn't for the fact that the very real side effect of this is corrosion of actual political discourse to the point of nearly destroying our democracy. So we can't just ignore it and let it go, which is why I keep replying to your attempts to disseminate false information here. You're welcome to your own personal fantasy world, but you don't get to use it to redefine reality for the rest of us. Sorry.
That's because Parler, the right, and Trump all have myriad connections to Russia, both directly and indirectly.
LOL. You're still on about this. Please, tell me about the "direct and indirect" connections to Russia. Then please illustrate how those connections are illegal or even improper. Finally, please demonstrate how they are 1/10th as significant as Democratic politicians connections. Psssst: There are Russians all over the place. The media has done a great job making them the boogeyman.
There's no clear proof that Alina is a Russian agent, but I'd be surprised if she wasn't. She as on a "road trip" across the US which sounds a LOT like the road trip taken by Anna Bogacheva who was indicted by Mueller for election interference. They were married in a government facility overseen by Alina’s mother, Gulnara Mukhutdinova, who is is a longtime government functionary, and Alina’s grandmother was an “Honored Builder of Russia” during Soviet times. So, ¯\(°_o)/¯ but it sure is fishy, especially when you factor in the Giuliani firm and his travel to Russia around that exact same time of its formation. Aside from all that, I don't think that's the focus here.
So you're just making it up because it sounds plausible and fits your world view. Got it.
It IS a right wing site. Maybe it wasn't "promoted that way" and Maltze had legit motivations for purely free speech reasons, but that's certainly not what it became, or is aiming to be now. It's overrun with Qanon freaks, seditionist traitors, Russian trolls, and yes "conservative" voices who are too shittily behaved to be allowed on other sites. It doesn't matter what the marketing or original intention was, it is what it is. If it walks like a duck, etc.
How do you know what it's aiming to be? Could you provide some evidence (quotes, marketing materials, etc) to support that? And yes, all of those groups are on Parler. There are also a lot of mainstream people and those who have done nothing wrong on other sites, yet were still booted for sharing the wrong opinion. You really don't know about what the platforms are doing, do you? As we speak, Facebook is testing an algorithm on 1.5% of its users (nearly 3 million accounts) that gives them a "vaccine hesitancy score" based on their comments regarding Covid vaccines. Depending on score, they then de-boost posts, limit visibility or even remove posts. This kind of thing has been going on for years. But you're probably right...it's just conservative nut jobs that were banned for their "sh*tty behavior."
Those are the facts, you can ignore them all you want because you've drank enough of the Kool Aid that you think Democrats are the enemy and Trump isn't a narcissist (are you kidding me?) but rational people will call it like they see it.
I'm not sure what Kool-Aid you're referring to, though as an educated person with actual political experience myself, I'm pretty confident in my judgement on these issues. I'm also comfortable with disagreement. Like many others I encounter who are more to the Left, that doesn't seem to be the case with you. I have a different opinion, so I must "irrational" or just a moron. I realize we disagree on the definition of "right wing site" and whether or not Trump is a textbook narcissist in real life. That's fine...I can see your points even if I ultimately disagree. It would be nice if you took that approach. Doing so would be...rational. 😉
The "direct and indirect connections to Russia" have been well documented in many places. I could point you to the Mueller report or the myriad people who were indicted in that process, the various in-depth studies into the ways Russia has embedded themselves in our social media sites (including tens of thousands in the early period of Parler's rise) and connections to the various people in that sphere of influence, or even Trump's bizarre real estate deals with Russian oligarchs, real estate and media interests in Moscow, and his subsequent excessive kowtowing to Putin, but you'll waive it all off because Barr purposely misrepresented the entire conversation around all of it and the right have run with that ever since ("no collusion!" etc). Whether Maltze's wife is an actual asset is immaterial, I added it as a humorous aside (at least to me), but it doesn't discount everything else I said about Parler's connections to far right-wing activists who are literally trying to undermine democracy and the Constitution in this country.
I know what the platforms are doing. The things they're blocking can be categorized as harmful misinformation. Things that may (and have) actually lead to things like death and attempted insurrections to overthrow our democracy. And, it's their right — and responsibility — to do so.
I also have "actual political experience" and an education, and I'm fine with disagreement when it's based in reality, but I don't believe anyone claiming Parler isn't a right-wing site or that Trump doesn't have clinical narcissistic personality disorder is operating from the same baseline. Sorry, but we'll have to disagree on what reality is I guess! lol What a world.
"We are being silenced by big tech!" he says, live on Twitter, Facebook, and every major TV channel.
All the major social media companies have an extreme bias in favor of right-wing politics. This is just another example of the Republicans' constant faked victimhood. They pretend to be persecuted even when they get privileges beyond what anybody else gets. It's exhausting.
I also love the carveout for Disney. They're always willing to go the extra mile to show you just how completely devoid of ethics and morals they are.
Objectively false. You’re buying into the same argument the companies themselves make. That is, because right wing sources are the most shared, it can’t possibly be biased against conservatives. The bias is provable… and it’s not even close.
So, let me hear ju defend the theme park loophole.
That kind of shameless corporate influence and corruption can only happen in the US.
The first amendment should be treated similarly to the second amendment. Being able to practice free speech is a right but you should be held accountable for the consequences of doing so, just like the right to own a gun does not free you from accountability should you use it to unjustifiably inflict harm on another person or their property.
The purveyors of hate that troll and manipulate social media want the protections afforded to them by the constitution but they do not want to be held accountable for their actions. It’s all about the lack of accountability that they are seeking.
This is getting ridiculous now. They’re enacting laws to “protect” political speech as if it’s a damn religion 😂
This is an unfortunate reaction to left based censorship. Apparently, Facebook and Twitter are fine with misinformation and hate so long as it is leftist based.
This is getting ridiculous now. They’re enacting laws to “protect” political speech as if it’s a damn religion 😂
This is an unfortunate reaction to left based censorship. Apparently, Facebook and Twitter are fine with misinformation and hate so long as it is leftist based.
Anyone else have "the left are the real fascists" on their bingo card?
Really disappointed in the inaccurate and baseless commentary within the article.
The bill is the first at a state level taking on a perceived problem of political content suppression, claims that have repeatedly been made before, during, and after the last U.S. Presidential election.
The way this is written is really biased. Calling it a "perceived problem" implies that those who believe that large platforms discriminate on ideological groups are somehow wrong or to be dismissed. Moreover, stating that the "claims" have been made "repeatedly" around the Presidential election is sly way of tying those who point out the bias as being tied to the former President, election fraud claims, and January 6th. Finally, AI links to its own article on a political content suppression lawsuit being dismissed. This further undermines the view that political content suppression is real.
Reasonable people can disagree on if such suppression is happening and to what extent, but if the author wants to take a position, he should do so directly. If not, it should be written from as neutral a POV as possible.
Unless other laws are passed to strip "personhood" from corporations, Florida's new law is not likely to survive a challenge to the Constitutionality of the law.
On what is this based? It has nothing to do with "personhood" under the law. It's about requiring transparency for censorship and allowing people to sue under Florida law. Either way, it's a wholly unsupported opinion.
While Apple doesn't operate a social network directly, it has become the target of criticism over Parler, a right-wing social media app
Parler is not a "right-wing" social media app. That is patently false. Parler is a free speech app. It was and is populated by conservatives and libertarians, but welcomes all viewpoints, including those left of center. It was never designed or marketed to be a right-wing social media app.
“Free speech” unless you say something they don’t like. Ask me how I know. In the end it’s just another RW echo chamber. Amplifying the voice of perceived grievance again and again and again...
Comments
It IS a right wing site. Maybe it wasn't "promoted that way" and Maltze had legit motivations for purely free speech reasons, but that's certainly not what it became, or is aiming to be now. It's overrun with Qanon freaks, seditionist traitors, Russian trolls, and yes "conservative" voices who are too shittily behaved to be allowed on other sites. It doesn't matter what the marketing or original intention was, it is what it is. If it walks like a duck, etc.
Those are the facts, you can ignore them all you want because you've drank enough of the Kool Aid that you think Democrats are the enemy and Trump isn't a narcissist (are you kidding me?) but rational people will call it like they see it.
Not sure what I'm supposed to stop. Obviously she was ousted because she had lost support. She lost support by voting to impeach and by verbally going on the war path against Trump. Her ouster was "because of Trump" in that sense. The party largely still supports him (according to polling) and she wasn't going to be able to continue in leadership without that support. Where I disagree is that the GOP did it in some sort of golden calf-worshipping exercise, or if they had taken Orange General Zod's hand and sworn internal loyalty.
So you're just making it up because it sounds plausible and fits your world view. Got it.
How do you know what it's aiming to be? Could you provide some evidence (quotes, marketing materials, etc) to support that? And yes, all of those groups are on Parler. There are also a lot of mainstream people and those who have done nothing wrong on other sites, yet were still booted for sharing the wrong opinion. You really don't know about what the platforms are doing, do you? As we speak, Facebook is testing an algorithm on 1.5% of its users (nearly 3 million accounts) that gives them a "vaccine hesitancy score" based on their comments regarding Covid vaccines. Depending on score, they then de-boost posts, limit visibility or even remove posts. This kind of thing has been going on for years. But you're probably right...it's just conservative nut jobs that were banned for their "sh*tty behavior."
I'm not sure what Kool-Aid you're referring to, though as an educated person with actual political experience myself, I'm pretty confident in my judgement on these issues. I'm also comfortable with disagreement. Like many others I encounter who are more to the Left, that doesn't seem to be the case with you. I have a different opinion, so I must "irrational" or just a moron. I realize we disagree on the definition of "right wing site" and whether or not Trump is a textbook narcissist in real life. That's fine...I can see your points even if I ultimately disagree. It would be nice if you took that approach. Doing so would be...rational. 😉
The network dropped "Fair and Balanced" four years ago. I used to watch a lot of Fox News (very little now), from news coverage to opinion shows. The opinion shows are obviously conservative, though they do bring on quite a few liberal guests and have permanent panel members who are left of center. Their news operation was never that far right. It leaned right for years, especially compared to what MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN became. But there has been a shift towards the middle or even leaning left over the past 5 years in their news coverage. Coupled with their disastrous election night coverage, conservatives have fled the network in droves. Either way, I think you'd be hard pressed to show that FNC is less factually accurate than their competitors.
Do me a favor. Search "Parler" and see what the top result is. For me it is "Parler Free Speech Network." Go to their home page and tell me what you see. Regardless of how many loons are on it, it's not marketed or pushed as a right wing platform.
People outside the conservative media bubble can see all this ridiculousness. We'd just write it off as weird or even pathetically funny and move on if it wasn't for the fact that the very real side effect of this is corrosion of actual political discourse to the point of nearly destroying our democracy. So we can't just ignore it and let it go, which is why I keep replying to your attempts to disseminate false information here. You're welcome to your own personal fantasy world, but you don't get to use it to redefine reality for the rest of us. Sorry.
I know what the platforms are doing. The things they're blocking can be categorized as harmful misinformation. Things that may (and have) actually lead to things like death and attempted insurrections to overthrow our democracy. And, it's their right — and responsibility — to do so.
I also have "actual political experience" and an education, and I'm fine with disagreement when it's based in reality, but I don't believe anyone claiming Parler isn't a right-wing site or that Trump doesn't have clinical narcissistic personality disorder is operating from the same baseline. Sorry, but we'll have to disagree on what reality is I guess! lol What a world.
That kind of shameless corporate influence and corruption can only happen in the US.
This is an unfortunate reaction to left based censorship. Apparently, Facebook and Twitter are fine with misinformation and hate so long as it is leftist based.