Jump to content

Talk:Parler

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.1.182.121 (talk) at 22:11, 10 June 2022 (False accusations leading to deplatforming: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

False accusations leading to deplatforming

The false accusations that were used to deplatform Parler were debunked by the Justice Department. This should be clarified in the article, that the accusations were false, and that a DOJ investigation found that Facebook, not Parler, was the platform most widely used to co-ordinate the storming of the Capitol. [1] Polygraphics (talk) 11:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where they? Your source seems to say that they were mentioned, just not that often.Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Parler was mentioned only 8 times, compared to 73 times for Facebook, 24 times for Youtube and 20 times for Instagram. This clearly shows that the narrative used to deplatform Parler was false. Polygraphics (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, as this was not the only reason given by some. So no it does not say they were not deplatformed for the reason (and I note your source also says its not possible to judge which social media platform was used to most to plan the riots) stated, or that the claim is false. Hypocritical maybe, but not false (does you source says the deplatforming was based on false excuses?).Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
wp:v and wp:or are clear, a source must explicitly state what you want to use it for, it cannot be based on what you interpret a source to say.Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is the only investigation that I have seen that has looked into this specific subject, and it clearly concludes that Parler was NOT a major factor in this, that Facebook was used many times more, that YouTube and Instagram were used way more than Parler. There is NO evidence at all to support the accusation that Parler was the main platform used to organize the Jan 6th protest in the Capitol, which WAS the reasoning for it's deplatforming. But, as can be seen in some other parts of the article, like the introduction, the truth is obviously irrelevant for some here, it's all about promoting an agenda. Polygraphics (talk) 10:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So? it has to say the claim this is why they were de-platformed was false. Lets give you an illustration of why we cannot use wp:or, if 1% of facebook posts were about jan 6th but 90% of parlers were that may be why some platforms (not all) decided they were a major part of the Jan 6th riot. Another example if facebook said "we know we did wrong we will try and change" that is not the same as Parler saying "cave to pressure", or (in other words) other platforms said "we will do better and parler did not. And (as I have said) some said other reasons as well its just that Jan 6th was the last straw, many of them did not say this was the only reason.Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are mainly two reasons for why Parler was deplatformed: nr 1. It was an effort by the large tech companies/social medias to stop a competing platform before it would become a threat to their own profits. Parler had built up a user base of 16 million users in a very short period of time. And nr. 2, it was the democrats and their allies in the news media trying to quell this new platform that allowed opinions that they did not approve of. Your made up percentages and made up quotes are irrelevant. Many times more of the communication to organize the Capitol protest occurred on Facebook than on Parler, that is a fact. It's in no way relevant how big percentage of the users was involved. The article I posted earlier clearly shows that the narrative used to deplatform Parler was false, and not correcting the article demonstrates strong bias, just like the absurd introduction in this article. Wikipedia should be politically neutral. Polygraphics (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like you're the one with a political bias. 69.1.182.121 (talk) 22:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think people need to read wp:soap and wp:forum.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think "people" might want to read wp:npov Polygraphics (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which means we go with what RS say, RS have not said the claim that parler was deplatformed over jan 6th is false, you are not an RS. So (again) provide an RS that actually says this is false.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have linked to a reliable source, that clarifies that based on an DOJ investigation, Parler was an insignificant part of the communications planning the Jan 6th protest in the Capitol. Parler was mentioned only 8 times, compared to 73 times for Facebook, 24 times for Youtube and 20 times for Instagram. You don't get to dictate the required wording. Polygraphics (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No it does not say that in fact it says its impossible to tell (want the quote? here is is "Whilst the data doesn’t show definitively what app was the most popular amongst rioters..." what it says is that "it does strongly indicate Facebook was rioters" the preferred platform.. on the other hand the word false only occours once, and that is a claim the chages made agasint a person were false. What it does not say (it is your intepretation) is that Parler wwas not deplatfoprmed for its use on Jan 6th. Again read [[wp:v], you ar rioght I cannot " dictate the required wording" policy can and does.Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"But Facebook was far and away the most cited social media site in charging documents the Justice Department filed against members of the Capitol Hill mob". "Forbes reviewed data from the Program on Extremism at the George Washington University, which has collated a list of more than 200 charging documents filed in relation to the siege. In total, the charging documents refer to 223 individuals in the Capitol Hill riot investigation. Of those documents, 73 reference Facebook. That’s far more references than other social networks. YouTube was the second most-referenced on 24. Instagram, a Facebook-owned company, was next on 20. Parler, the app that pledged protection for free speech rights and garnered a large far-right userbase, was mentioned in just eight." - From the Forbes link I posted above. Polygraphics (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see there one use of the term de-platforming, read wp:or and stop this now.Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant line currently being used in this Wikipedia article: “After reports that Parler was used to coordinate the 2021 storming of the U.S. Capitol, several companies denied it their services.[41]”. And as the article I linked to shows, Parler was not significant in the co-ordination, others like Facebook, YouTube and Instagram played a much larger role. So the accusation in those reports was false or at least grossly misleading. Polygraphics (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That was the reason given, and we do not say "significant". Also "mentions" and "coordination" are not the same thing. A person could write (let's discuss this on insurrection Parler" 15 times, and on parler say "the plan is..." once). Which was used to coordinate the plan? This is (again) why we do not do OR. And with this, I am out of here. If you cannnot obey our policies there is no point in this discussion.Slatersteven (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, this DOJ investigation is the only investigation done into the use of social medias regarding the co-ordination of the Jan 6th protest. The conclusion supports what I have been saying here from the start. This article is very biased, and I am simply trying to point out one part of the article that could easily be improved. I have not even made an suggestion on how it should be worded. Perhaps others should get to comment on this. Polygraphics (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]