Tu quoque; it seems uncharitable of you to respond to a "question in good faith" by immediately accusing them of bad faith and of lying, and asking them to prove their innocence by proving a negative.

I think the parent raises a very legitimate question of what defines a "hate site, filled with conspiracy theories, radicalization and racism." I've never had a Twitter account myself, but some of the publicly-available content I've seen there there certainly fits that description. Conversely, I did briefly have a Parler account, and what I saw in my particular bubble did not fit that description at all - It was crypto enthusiasts, entrepreneurs, and comedians. I'm not trying to imply that my anecdote is data or that Parler is some bastion of positivity, but the way your premise is stated only requires a single counterexample: some "hate speech" exists on Twitter, and not everything on Parler is.

You say, "the purpose of Parler's existence is (was) to facilitate communication that larger social networks stifle." To me that sounds like the old adage that "the Internet treats censorship as damage, and routes around it." At least five years ago that was largely seen as a feature rather than a bug. But recently the tide of popular opinion seems to have shifted in general favor of censorship. Undeniably there are some bad ideas out there, but I worry that the "cure" of censorship is a slippery slope that could very quickly become worse than the disease.

I would suggest that 'the internet treats LAW as damage, and routes around it'.

> This is another question in good faith. Can you provide any evidence at all that you're not knowingly asking that as a political/debating tactic to suggest your proposition is reasonable, knowing full well that the purpose of Parler's existence is (was) to facilitate communication that larger social networks stifle, and categorize as hate speech?

Maybe something is lost over text, but I genuinely prefaced my question because I know it's a delicate political topic for people. But your response is just childish. I literally barely know anything about Parler. Also, how is asking for evidence so triggering? That should be the cornerstone of any these types of discussions.

But to answer your question: No, I can't prove to you what I'm thinking. Nobody ever can. So perhaps you should just take my question on face value and stop assuming malicious intent.

So the answer is no. In that case let me answer for you while you have your moment of outrage. A hacker named donk_enby made a back up that will soon be available for researchers to answer just this question. We will be able to look at this data set and see if Parler incites more violence both in absolute numbers and in percentage terms. My best guess is that twitter/has has more calls to violence in absolute terms because it is several times larger and has been around for several years. They have a large moderation team but they're not as responsive in all languages. In percentage terms, that can't be answered yet without looking at the data. https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2021/01/11/parler-h...

> that larger social networks stifle, and categorize as hate speech?

Let me fix that:

> that multiple countries and international organizations categorize as hate speech?

A casual reminder that when most think these open air rules are intended to stifle conversation it is generally for very clear legal and moral reasons. If you believe this is used by them to control people then you should also believe that a replacement should view this speech as antithetical to the existence of the free speech social company.

It's one thing to ban talk about the platform you are talking on.

It's not the same thing to ban intolerant behavior.

It all leads back to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

I've seen this argument so many times, and it always strikes me that those who cite it often have either not read, or completely miss the point Karl Popper was trying to make. He goes so far as to even say: "I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise." I am quite sick of the usage of the paradox of tolerance being used as an attack against a free, pluralistic society.

Clearly you didn't quote the rest of that exact line for a reason.

He goes on to explain what situation would call for use of suppression, for example, the use of violence or rejecting reason or logic by the intolerant (Which, obviously both are what happened in January 6th and in this narrative) ;)

The ban isn't on conservative viewpoints, it is on intolerant speech that has no want to make a logical discussion and resorts to violence. Trust me, I'm using it correctly.

Banning intolerant behavior means that whoever screams 'Intolerance!' the loudest wins

The funny thing about intolerance is that it's pretty easy to define:

Unwillingness to accept(or tolerate) views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one's own.

When we talk about intolerant behavior we are talking about actions and statements that are intended to demean others by design (and praise the inverse), this is pretty easy to define. Saying that a person's skin color or gender makes them lesser or to be despised is clearly intolerant, the person in context is clearly unable to change this as it is how they are. Whats funny about this is that the US Bill of rights is a statement on intolerance by design. It's meant to both give rights but also set tone.

God forbid anyone wants to discuss anything "that the larger social networks stifle, and categorize as hate speech". Anyone that expresses such a desire is guilty of hate speech and must be silenced.