Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

JFL Parler CEO John Matze terminated by the board

go post it on inceltears
 
foids.

ee3592011d541732e05eae0b2a2b5d72.png
 
In terms of richfag families, the Mercers are probably the biggest conservative donors in burgerland after the Kochs and maybe the Waltons.

At the end of the day, $ has the last say.
 

In terms of richfag families, the Mercers are probably the biggest conservative donors in burgerland after the Kochs and maybe the Waltons.

At the end of the day, $ has the last say.
So establishment conservatives and monied interests then had a say in taking over Parler.

This is why @BlkPillPres if you ever have a company like this you need to make sure those that control or own shares have the same ideology as you do. Money isn't just money anymore. Identity politics is coming into everything.
 
Can someone explain to me what parler is? I am dumb
 
So establishment conservatives and monied interests then had a say in taking over Parler.

This is why @BlkPillPres if you ever have a company like this you need to make sure those that control or own shares have the same ideology as you do. Money isn't just money anymore. Identity politics is coming into everything.
You have to understand that Parler was, at the end of the day, a business just like any other social media company.

Matze was more interested in identity politics than the business end. He got fired. End of.
 
You have to understand that Parler was, at the end of the day, a business just like any other social media company.

Matze was more interested in identity politics than the business end. He got fired. End of.
But Parler was specifically meant to be a platform for people with views that weren't politically correct. How was Matze more interested in identity politicis when appealing to conservatives and people that were Trump supporters was his platform's business model? All because he refused to remove supposedly violent posts on Parler when asked to by social media companies?

 
OH WOW I WONDER WHAT ETHNICITY THE MERCERS ARE
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((()))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

This shit is so predictable. FFS. It truly does get tiring.
 
Can someone explain to me what parler is? I am dumb
A parler is like a combination living room cozy den where people hang out and have drinks and chat.

Mostly in the American rural south.
 
But Parler was specifically meant to be a platform for people with views that weren't politically correct. How was Matze more interested in identity politicis when appealing to conservatives and people that were Trump supporters was his platform's business model? All because he refused to remove supposedly violent posts on Parler when asked to by social media companies?

I think it says a lot about American conservatism that the vast majority of Trump supporters see no issue with violently storming the Capitol in an attempt to overturn a free and fair election, or with spreading baseless conspiracy theories that the political establishment is run by a cabal of pedophiles.

His business model was to operate a social media platform that focused on free speech. It wasn't to become a restrictive haven for far-right extremists -- which is what happened.
 
I think it says a lot about American conservatism that the vast majority of Trump supporters see no issue with violently storming the Capitol in an attempt to overturn a free and fair election, or with spreading baseless conspiracy theories that the political establishment is run by a cabal of pedophiles.
That wasn't the vast majority of Trump supporters that stormed the capitol though. It was mostly QAnon people that are more loyal to Q than believing Trump in anything.
His business model was to operate a social media platform that focused on free speech. It wasn't to become a restrictive haven for far-right extremists -- which is what happened.
By necessity having a platform for free speech means the reality of potentially having "extremists" join your site and post a large volume of unconventional things that express a lot of rage, dissatisfaction with the status quo and calls to do something about it.

Btw "extremists" is a really loose term that has been applied to incels and the manosphere too. Please explain what you mean by "extremists" in this context.
 
That wasn't the vast majority of Trump supporters that stormed the capitol though. It was mostly QAnon people that are more loyal to Q than believing Trump in anything.

By necessity having a platform for free speech means the reality of potentially having "extremists" join your site and post a large volume of unconventional things that express a lot of rage, dissatisfaction with the status quo and calls to do something about it.

Btw "extremists" is a really loose term that has been applied to incels and the manosphere too. Please explain what you mean by "extremists" in this context.
That's the problem; it wasn't a platform for free speech. Parler banned dozens if not hundreds of left-wing individuals, and their terms of service are just as restrictive as those of Facebook and Twitter, if not more.

It was a platform for far-right extremists, which, in this context, describes individuals on the ideological fringe who no longer respect lawful, democratic principles.
 
That's the problem; it wasn't a platform for free speech. Parler banned dozens if not hundreds of left-wing individuals, and their terms of service are just as restrictive as those of Facebook and Twitter, if not more.
I see. Maybe they went overboard with O'Sullivan's First Law.
It was a platform for far-right extremists, which, in this context, describes individuals on the ideological fringe who no longer respect lawful, democratic principles.
If you are suggesting that people contesting the US election results should have been banned from Parler doesn't that go against Parler's own terms of service? What's then stopping another government from finding issue with political beliefs on that site and trying to boot those people off Parler?
 
But Parler was specifically meant to be a platform for people with views that weren't politically correct. How was Matze more interested in identity politicis when appealing to conservatives and people that were Trump supporters was his platform's business model? All because he refused to remove supposedly violent posts on Parler when asked to by social media companies?

It seriosuly makes my blood boil how much these companies control the political narrative. Just ban the people who disagree with your pathetic shitty gay views. Money and free market got nothing to do with it, this is pure muscle extortion mafia style.
That's the problem; it wasn't a platform for free speech. Parler banned dozens if not hundreds of left-wing individuals, and their terms of service are just as restrictive as those of Facebook and Twitter, if not more.

It was a platform for far-right extremists, which, in this context, describes individuals on the ideological fringe who no longer respect lawful, democratic principles.
I come to .co for blackpills and then I have to witness this cuck.
 
It seriosuly makes my blood boil how much these companies control the political narrative. Just ban the people who disagree with your pathetic shitty gay views. Money and free market got nothing to do with it, this is pure muscle extortion mafia style.
tbh
I come to .co for blackpills and then I have to witness this cuck.
Pretty much all censorship and deplatforming has been extended to or tried on incels too tbh. Don't see how any blackpilled incel that wants to cope on these sites would be in favor of the Parler deplatforming or this recent news and its implications for the copes and possible business ventures any incels could get into.
 
I see. Maybe they went overboard with O'Sullivan's First Law.

If you are suggesting that people contesting the US election results should have been banned from Parler doesn't that go against Parler's own terms of service? What's then stopping another government from finding issue with political beliefs on that site and trying to boot those people off Parler?
There's a difference between merely questioning the U.S. election results and the advocacy of using violence to overturn the U.S. election, the latter of which became an issue for Parler.

Actually, Parler's terms of service said they could boot people off for any reason they wanted to.

This forum doesn't permit the explicit incitement to violence either -- it follows the U.S.' Brandenburg standard to a tee.
 
Leftists won't care about your excuses when they find you are posting on an incel site, turbocuck.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top