I think it will be a huge success. That’s terrifying.
Are we ignoring Joy Reid? There’s plenty of examples of recent liberal bigotry but Reid is the most blatant example of continually saying bigoted things even today and yet continuing to get promoted.
Parler’s terms of service prohibit porn so need to worry about that. But if your definition of “hate” is “anything I disagree with” then you probably wouldn’t want to advertise there.
From the article I quoted above about Parler’s growing porn problem:
Parler once banned all pornography but in recent months revised its terms of service to permit essentially anything that’s legal
Are you saying they flipped back? I can’t see anything in the user agreement I found on their website about banning porn.
Conservatives on Twitter are being banned or suspended for what they post on twitter. You’re linking to a story about Joy Reid’s controversial statements elsewhere.
Wernick wrote in his op-ed that while Parler does not welcome or promote pornogaphic posts, it now allows porn showing consenting adults—sometimes labeled with warnings—because the approach is more in keeping with a “free speech” foundation.
And because I want to acknowledge efforts made, I shoudl also quote later in the article
According to Wernick, Parler members are able to restrict any NSFW [not safe for work] content while signing up for a profile, stopping such posts from appearing on a feed. And he claimed internal metrics suggest many users have chosen to use it.
So, yes, it allows porn, with the stated limitation that it’s ‘legal’ and between consenting adults. And if the filters work, you hopefully would not see it. But it’s still porn. And regarding hate speech, I stated that if I was an advertiser (which I’m not) I woudn’t want to advertise next to porn or hate. Whose definition of hate other than my own would I use? This board, the UN, the US and many different constituencies define hate speech differently.
Are you referring to the Dec 3 Wash Post story?
“Parler once banned all pornography but in recent months revised its terms of service to permit essentially anything that’s legal, making its policy close to Twitter’s, if slightly more permissive…”
Here’s the debunking of the Wash Post article :
“…best course of action would be to allow legal pornography between consenting adults on the platform, and to provide labels that would alert our members of the content within.”
“…The Washington Post briefly touches on Twitter’s own policies but does not delve any further — a testament to their shoddy journalism and biased reporting”. If they had done their due diligence, they would have also found the massive proliferation of pornography on Twitter"
“Upon conducting a quick, one click search of Twitter, one of the top pornography profiles has over 1.7 million followers to date, with 156,900 posts; the latest post as of 18 minutes ago from writing this opinion piece shows explicit sexual acts”
“Parler members, upon signing up for a profile, have the option to toggle a button that will restrict “NSFW” content from appearing on their chronological Parler feed.”
Apparently it’s already fading:
The article suggests that it’s a combination of several factors, including the spam and the porn but not limited to that.
So no response to the fact that you said Parler bans porn and it turns out they don’t?
That’s not a debunking. The Washington Post didn’t write that there was no porn on Twitter, and as your “debunking” notes, it did mention the moderation policy of Parler was relaxed on this front to be more in line with Twitter.
Washington Post’s point was that Parler’s moderation approach was inadequate for dealing with spammy porn promoters who want their content to be put in front of as many eyes as possible.
Now the Post could be wrong, and Parler could be as “porn safe” as Twitter, where I can’t remember the last time I inadvertently saw a porn tweet, but I’m not taking your, or Parler’s or the Washington Times’ word for it when you go straight to setting up strawmen.
If you-all want a good belly-laugh, head on over to the Newsmax website. Sure, it’s all pro-Trump and conspiracy theories, but the comments at the bottom of the garbage articles are pure joy. You will get a good flavor for the level of delusion millions of fellow Americans are living with. I am almost thinking of creating an account just to troll these people (except that trolling is not really my forte), but it appears there are a few sane people already there doing just that. 
Please explain why you call this bigotry.
"…Representatives Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, two of the first Muslim women elected to the US Congress, both called for an apology. "
I misspoke. Initially Parler did have a ban on porn but now they have adopted the same policy as Twitter.
When you use it as an argument “I misspoke” is not the correct description. The correct description is “I was wrong” or “I was mistaken”.
Ah, NewsMax.
NewsMax is the heart and soul of the right wing grift. They partner with politicians like Mike Huckabee and Herman Cain ( this is an older article, this stuff has been going on a long time) to feed the people that subscribe to their e-mail lists a steady stream of offers for scammy nutritional and financial products. This article lays out how it works - and I assume they’re feeding the people that register on their website a steady diet of the same scams.
From the article
“Calabrese [A NewsMax media partner] argues that questioning the dubious nature of the products and services relayed through the promotion amounts to elitism. “
This seems to sum up the modern conservatism in a nutshell.
This 2012 Rick Perlstein article , which I’ve posted before but it’s well worth reading -tracks the rise of mail order conservatism. It’s also sort of amusingly quaint in the way he paints Romney 2012 as the epitome of the lying Republican politician. Oh, how far we’ve fallen.
And if you want to know just how toxic NewsMax is, read this amusing account of day a spent watching NewsMax. Right wing media is poison, a drug worse than heroin.
All those people you mention have since evolved in their thinking and no longer espouse those views.
Read more carefully and you’ll spot the “and/or”.
Wow 1977. And if you read-Biden emphasized wanting to “insure we do have orderly integration of society,” adding he was “not just talking about education but all of society.”
He then said: “Unless we do something about this, my children are going to grow up in a jungle, the jungle being a racial jungle with tensions having built so high that it is going to explode at some point. We have got to make some move on this.”
He was calling for orderly integration, when that was almost a novel concept. Hardly bigotry.
Joy Reed has never held office as a Democrat. Neither has the Rev. Not to mention his quote was from 1980.
Oh OK…it’s all cool then.
Yeah, that’s exactly the point he was trying to make 