[godelski]

I'm having a hard time finding an ad since everything is being pulled, but they advertised to sites like Breitbart and Info Wars and even included the enforcements in several ads I saw. That's specifically catering to extremist groups.

But I'll point to videos I can find which aren't as bad. If anyone can find the original ads that I mentioned I'd appreciate a link. Here[0] Ingram mentions radicals like Alex Jones and Candice Owens mentioning that it is a social network specifically for conservatives. It is easy to find plenty of videos like this where they consistently talk about it being a social media platform for conservatives. Here's one where the CEO complains about fact checking the president[1]. He does end struggling to suggest that Parler is gaining diversity, but also says that Twitter is a Biden community in the same sentence. But I've never been one to think that Twitter was specifically targeting conservatives. But you'll find that a lot of these interviews do still focus around the politics of the issue. Compare that to Signal's much more neutral stance on the matter.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6iyAt1Ydpc

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8IcjsFHwc8

Edit: Downvoters, would you mind explaining? Is it that I no longer have a direct link to Parler using Info Wars/Alex Jones and Breitbart as endorsements? Or do you not think those are extremist websites?

[o-__-o]

Alex Jones and brietbart are sensationalists, not extremists.

If you cannot understand your own tone, maybe you need to take a step back and consider you may be part of the problem (being unable to regulate your emotions and have a neutral conversation)

[godelski]

> Alex Jones and brietbart are sensationalists, not extremists.

Can you expand on this? I understand Breitbart more since people like Milo were more clearly trolls. But Alex Jones frequently talks about conspiracy theories and is promoting the current insurrection (see below). But if many extremists frequent your sites then maybe the line is pretty blurry and you should expect others to confuse them. And to quote from an article that is on Info Wars' front page (in its entirety)[0]

> They continue twisting the occupation of our nation’s Capitol by frustrated citizens and using it to destroy anyone that stands in their way.

> As DC Mayor Bouser lords over her potential future state with a 15 day emergency order following the Capitol Building siege, the National Guard, including 1,000 soldiers from New York, are stationed in the nation’s Capitol to protect the illegitimate inauguration of the Manchurian Candidate Joe Biden while the old establishment propaganda ratchets into full protection mode and the defenders of the New World Order crawl out of their holes to justify the plague that is exterminating liberty.

How do you differentiate this from extremism? Reading words like "occupation", "illegitimate inauguration", "New World Order", and "exterminating liberty" seem to me like extremist views. I'm not sure how you differentiate the two, but saying that a deep state rigged the election and calling those who attacked the capital "frustrated citizens" is in my view an extremist stance. These words encourage those actions. Extremists always use inflammatory language, so where is the line drawn? When does sensationalism because extremism? When you have followers that act on your words? I feel like we're there.

[0] https://www.infowars.com/posts/selling-the-illusion-of-insur...

[o-__-o]

You would not respond with a book of text about a comment about the taliban (extremists). But Alex Jones gets you to write a thesis.. that’s sensationalism. Something that bothers you but not everyone.