Parler may be a trap

While it’s possible that some of these restrictions are in place to deal with the inevitable SJW infiltrators and activists, I would not utilize it based on the dichotomy between its public free speech posturing and its Terms of Use. It’s founder’s statements about fighting badthink are also a significant red flag.

14. You agree to defend and indemnify Parler, as well as any of its o cers, directors, employees, and agents, from and against any and all claims, actions, damages, obligations, losses, liabilities, costs or debt, and expenses (including but not limited to all attorneys fees) arising from or relating to your access to and use of the Services. Parler will have the right to conduct its own defense, at your expense, in any action or proceeding covered by this indemnity.

Parler’s claim to be pro-free speech also appears to be somewhat overstated:

9. Parler may remove any content and terminate your access to the Services at anytime and for any reason or no reason, although Parler endeavors to allow all free speech that is lawful and does not infringe the legal rights of others. 

Don’t forget that Twitter and Facebook both used to cloak themselves in free speech rhetoric before unmasking their social justice faces. Parler also mandates AAA arbitration while banning group action, but lacks the California consumer protection laws.

I’m not saying this because we intend SG to compete with the likes of Twitter, Parler, and Gab – we don’t. At best, Parler is for the cons and civnats who are being banished from the SJWsphere. It strikes me as the Breitbart of social media, a gatekeeping action meant to keep conservatives in the corral and ineffectual.

The core problem is that mass social media is now little more than an involuntary resignation machine.