‘Free speech social media’? Three questions about Parler.
Launched in 2018, Parler touts itself as “the world’s premier free speech platform.” In the wake of the election, millions of new users have joined Parler, pushing it to the top of the App Store charts.
screen grab from Google Play
Launched in 2018, social media platform Parler markets itself as “the world’s premier free speech platform.” It first made headlines as a refuge for conservative provocateurs who had been banned from Twitter for violating that company’s terms of service. Now, in the wake of the election, millions of new users have joined Parler, pushing it to the top of the App Store charts and further into the mainstream.
Q: How does Parler work?
From a user experience, the platform mirrors Twitter, just with different lingo. In the same way you would retweet or like a tweet, users can “echo” or “upvote” a “parley.” Posts can include up to 1,000 characters, as well as images, gifs, or videos. To access certain features like direct messaging, you need to provide proof of identification.
Although Parler calls itself “unbiased social media,” and CEO John Matze says the site was never meant to become a conservative bastion, endorsements from figures such as Senator Ted Cruz and Fox News host Sean Hannity have raised the company’s profile as a viable right-wing challenger to Twitter. The Wall Street Journal reported that heiress Rebekah Mercer – whose family has backed other companies such as Cambridge Analytica, a consulting firm that worked on Donald Trump's 2016 campaign – is bankrolling the project. The company does not currently accept advertising.
Why We Wrote This
Trust in Silicon Valley is low, with seven out of 10 Americans believing social media companies censor political viewpoints. Efforts by Twitter and Facebook to stem misinformation have inspired some conservative users to seek an alternative.
Audrey Courty, a Ph.D. candidate studying social media and political extremism at Griffith University in Brisbane, Australia, says it makes sense that Parler would embrace the surge in popularity regardless of the founder’s intent. “At the end of the day, Parler is a business,” she says. “It’s not in their interest to just be a niche platform, but at the moment, it’s a very good strategy to get yourself off the ground.”
Q: Can you really post anything?
No. The company says they follow the Federal Communications Commission’s guidelines on violent or obscene speech. In a post on Parler, Mr. Matze outlined the “very few basic rules”: No pornography, no death threats, and, he wrote, no “posting pictures of your fecal matter in the comment section.”
Parler claims to give users the power to moderate their feeds but experts point out that it more or less operates like a regular social media company. Parler makes it clear in the user agreement it retains the right to terminate an account or remove content for any reason. While debunked claims about voter fraud and QAnon theories are flourishing unchecked, and white supremacist and anti-Semitic ideas are not hard to find, some liberal users have reported being banned from the site after criticizing the company’s legal practices.
Benedict Evans, an independent tech analyst, says crackdowns are expected on any growing platform. “Everyone is a fan of free speech until they have some users,” he says.
Q: What does this mean for Silicon Valley?
It’s unlikely that Parler will replace Twitter. While its earliest champions had nowhere else to turn, today’s top Parler users have remained active on mainstream social media. Outrage over Twitter’s handling of the president’s tweets may have doubled Parler’s user base, which is now reportedly 10 million, but that is still a far cry from Twitter’s monthly active user base of nearly 70 million in the United States alone.
But that doesn’t necessarily mean Parler is likely to disappear completely. Mr. Evans says he can imagine the company “dibbling along” for another decade if the Mercers keep funding it and it’s not torpedoed by a scandal – like a “parley” leading to offline violence.
That’s what Ms. Courty calls dangerous speech, which most people across the political spectrum agree needs to be regulated.
“What we can’t agree on is how to regulate it, who should regulate it, and what it is,” she says.
So far, a group of white, male developers in Silicon Valley have been making those decisions, with little to no transparency. That’s certainly not working, says Ms. Courty, but she doubts Mr. Matze – a white, male developer based in Nevada – has the answer.