We Now Have More Parler Subscribers Than Twitter Subscribers


I've heard news stories about the surge in Parler users, and whatever is happening generally, we're certainly seeing it here. A week ago, we had 6,800 followers, a result of moderate growth since we joined in mid-August. Today, we are up to 27,000, basically quadrupling in a week. This is also now above our 23,500 Twitter subscribers (adding the @VolokhC, @VolokhSpeech, and @VolokhGuns numbers).

We're still seeing a good deal more referrals to our full posts from Twitter than Parler; there seems to be more of a click-through culture either on Twitter generally or among our longstanding Twitter users. (Perhaps the "longstanding" is part of the reason: Our Twitter users have been with us for years, and may therefore especially like the blog and be willing to follow the Tweets to the posts, more so than people who are just first coming across the blog.)

And, more importantly, we're happy to have more readers on either platform; we're delighted with having the Twitter readers we have as much as the Parler readers (and of course we're delighted by people who visit us directly, too)—thankfully, there's no need to choose. Plus it's good for users to have more companies competing for them. In any event, I wanted to update our readers on this; if you want to follow us on Parler, we're @VolokhC, just as we are on Twitter.

NEXT: Mississippi School Bans "Jesus Loves Me" Mask, Allegedly Allows "Black Lives Matter" Masks

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Followed when I made a Parler account because it's one of the few reputable names I saw scroll by on the list, amidst a sea of reactionary conservatives and trumpians. Still just read the blog in RSS though

    1. Yes, reading it in RSS is a great option; glad it works for you! What mechanism do you use for that, and would you recommend it to other readers?

      Also, Parler readers do seem to be more conservative and Trumpian than we are -- but all the more reason for us to reach out to them, I think. If they already agreed with us on everything, we'd have less opportunity to persuade them. (To be sure, we could still inform them about specific factual matters we had learned about, such as new legal developments.) On the other hand, if they agreed with us on nothing, they'd be less likely to be open to being persuaded by us.

      1. The idea that the Trumpians who come here from Parler can be persuaded or even informed about specific factual matters, is a wonderful, and completely unrealistic, ideal. I love the optimism, if not the tenuous ties it has to reality.

        1. Just shy of half the country voted for Trump. Suggesting that half the country are unpersuadable deplorables is ignorant.

          1. No, it is the truth. And their ignorance is caused by things like Parler.

            1. Politicians threaten facebook with monstrous collapse of stock value by threatening section 230 for not censoring harrassment, oh, and by the way, our political opponents harrass, so please silence them.

              I could grant you every last evil of Trump and Parlor and the Republicans, and it's still not the most vile and dangerous thing to democracy and freedom itself to come out of our government the past few years.

            2. You write off people without knowing much about them. I am trying to engage with people, not insult them.

              1. 70% of Republicans believe, without a single shred of evidence, that the election was not free and fair. 78% believe that mail in voting led to widespread voter fraud. 72% believe ballots were tampered with by officials. Those people would rather rely on the lies of the President than the statements of election officials, CISA, and international election observers. Evidence and kind words won't make a lick of difference to those kind of people.

                I'm glad you're more patient and kind to those kinds of people. Maybe you can get the other 30% to actually consider evidence rather than the latest talking points. Good luck with that.

                You can

                1. "Not a single shred of evidence"

                  Except for multiple signed affidavits from people who witnessed fraud...

                  Here's one


                  1. You really want to rely on Constantino? The judge who heard that case denied the petition, going so far as to say the allegations were "“incorrect and not credible.”

                    Specifically to the affidavit you cite, the judge said: "Ms. Carone's description of the events at the TCF Center does not square with any other affidavits ... Neither Republican nor Democratic challengers nor city officials substantiate her version of events. The allegations are simply not credible."

                    1. I believe you said "without a single shred of evidence"

                      Here's one. Now you're arguing about the evidence.

                    2. I'll go ahead and file your response with "The Shining is "evidence" of the Moon Landing Hoax" and "The horizon is "evidence" that we live on a flat Earth".

                      Or, to appease your partisan hyper-pedanticness, you can simply add the word "credible" before the word "evidence" in my first post.

                    3. Setting aside how much of what she said was credible, the vast majority of it doesn't show "fraud" at all.

                  2. Very convincing.

                    “Ms. Carone’s description of the events at the TCF Center does not square with any of the other affidavits,” Judge Kenny found. “There are no other reports of lost data, or tabulating machines that jammed repeatedly every hour during the count. Neither Republican nor Democratic challengers nor city officials substantiate her version of events. The allegations simply are not credible.”

                    Look, there have been no serious allegations of fraud. The dead people Tucker Carlson goes on about didn't vote. The out-of-state ballots in NV were legitimate, sharpiegate didn't happen, etc.

                    The whole thing is utter BS, and only gullible fools or willfully blind Trump cultists take it seriously.

                    1. So, there are multiple affidavits from witnesses of fraud in the election. Those affidavits should be taken seriously, as there are very serious penalties for lying in them. They should be fully investigated

                      In addition, we have an election software issue that has already been demonstrated to "accidentally" swing a few thousand votes one way or another. A full interrogation of this software package should be called for.

                      Perhaps you think we shouldn't take affidavits of fraud seriously? That these allegations shouldn't be fully investigated, and not just shouted down as "There's no fraud"....without a full investigation. Is that what you believe?

                      What other potential crimes should be handled the same? Are there other witness statements on the record of other potential crimes that shouldn't be taken seriously, but shouted down as "It didn't happen. Don't investigate. It doesn't exist". And thus ignored.

                      Just curious on your view here...

                    2. Perhaps you think we shouldn’t take affidavits of fraud seriously?

                      It seems to me the court took Carone's affidavit seriously, and decided it was bullshit.

                      You seem to be saying that we should credit it in preference to others who say they saw nothing of the sort. That's ridiculous.

                    3. I'm saying it should be fully investigated. All court has is seven affidavits from one side saying there's fraud, and six on the other side saying "Nope, none of it". Now, the court is hard pressed to actually stop the certification process based on what's a "he said/she said" situation. But an investigation? That is certainly called for.

                      We've had far wider investigations in this country, on far scantier evidence. We've had a 30 million dollar investigation of "Russian Meddling" based on a fraudulent dossier passed onto a single unreliable British citizen by Russian Intelligence, that was easily disproven with simple searched.

                      We've had a full senate hearing based on one woman's magical "recollection" of supposed sexual assault more than 20 years ago (after deleting her entire social media history), where no dates can be remembered but the one thing she's sure of, is it was surely that SCOTUS nominee. And we must believe her.

                      But 7 distinct affidavits of fraud within an election center? Countered by the supervisor saying "Didn't happen. Nope."....and not even an investigation by a third party? That doesn't seem right.

                2. And you trust those statistics because they came from where, precisely? Did it ever occur to you that statistics collected to demonize one's political opponents might not be entirely trustworthy?

            3. Based on the way you speak, I suspect you may be the ignorant one.

  2. Any idea how much overlap there is between the two groups?

    BTW I use RSS in Mozilla Seamonkey and have for years.

  3. Sure would be nice if there were a social media outfit which only censored pursuant to a court order and let users vote posts up and down. Seems to me the key is to let users follow posts curated by other users, and to follow the Slashdot paradigm of all users ("moderators") being able to vote posts up and down, and other veteran users ("meta moderators") voting moderations up and down. Might want to require or at least allow tags for moderation, such as "fake", "funny", "rambling", etc.

    The current "moderation" is way too subjective and centralized.

    1. The problem with your model is monetization. Someone has to run all the servers and pay for the Internet access and whatnot. So far the only viable model for monetizing social media is advertising, and it turns out advertisers aren't that keen on having ads run next to totally uncensored content.

      1. Base the ad price on how much it has been moderated, and by whom.

        1. Feel free to start a business based on this premise. It's an interesting idea that some VC might even go for (just the advertising part to validate whether or not it's useful, don't need to make your own Twitter competitor and try to overcome the network effects). In general, the big advertisers are pretty conservative and want the platforms to minimize the risk that their ads are going to run next to "offensive" content, which so far involves a centralized takedown process. I tend to think you'd mostly end up with junk advertisements, but I find ad tech super boring so could definitely be wrong!

    2. How do you stop brigading, though?

      "All wrongthink gets downvoted by our squad of truth-defenders!" is ... a thing. Even when it's spontaneous, let alone when someone organizes it.

      1. That's what curators and following are for. People who don't care can take their chances; people who care can ignore uncurated posts by people they don't follow.

        1. Usually curation systems don't have an off button and will ultimately fall victim to mob mentality. I don't see any value in group curation. Individualized "ignore" has always been sufficient for me.

      2. VC had a voting system back in the day, either Post or pre-Post, I do not recall.

        But there was a pretty good broad set of upvotes, though with the usual bias towards pithy dunking versus longer efforts.

        Whether that would still be the case is something I doubt, though commenters and readers are different sets of people, so who knows!
        Pre-Post sure does sound oxymoronic!

        1. (Let's get an edit function before a voting system)

        2. Didn't the voting come with Disqus?

        3. I'm not sure mod systems even work as designed anymore. They are susceptible to astroturfing by organizations (state sponsored, large political or other orgs) with tended, prepared sock puppets ready to downmod opposition.

          And that's on top of non-sentient echo chamber warriors ready to downmod based on received wisdom therefrom.

          Slashdot is supposed to have a "metamod" system where moderations are themselves modded with up or down points, presumably to de-weight people who mod this way. Good luck with that.

  4. For Trump suppoters, Parler has the advantage of being fact-free. You can live in a counterfactual right wing bubble, and post new info about Biden and Obama and Hillary Clinton and their pedophile sex ring, without getting flagged.

    The comments here have gone downhill ever since VC got attached to Reason. Prof. Volokh should not feel complimented that he is getting popular with Parler, any more than if VC got to be a hot go-to site for the Stormfront crowd.

    1. Not even a neo-nazi could make up a better example of partisan lies in one comment.

      1. Um...have you been to Parler? That's all pretty well true. One would hope that the decent people take one look and are so disgusted they start really reflecting on the bullshit that's been spewed and that they have ingested wholeheartedly.

        1. Ummm, have you been to twitter?

          Ummmm, does your progressive outlook make everything to the right of AOC into a neo-nazi?

          Ummm, do you hate competition? Did you think it was right for the NYT to fire an editor for daring to let a US Senator write an op-ed whose very words were violence (and now they tell us that silence is violence, which must mean that silencing a US Senator is violence)?

          Sheesh, proggies have been doing their damnedest to silence anyone to the right of AOC, to label them all as nazis, facists, white supremacists, and kick them off Twitter, Facebook, and everywhere else. Now they find a place which hasn't kicked them off yet, and the cancel culture steps up to the plate again, calls them all nazis, fascists, white supremacists, and extends that label to the new platform because it lets them in.

          What the heck do you proggies want? An echo chamber of just proggies? Good luck with that, but if that's what you want, go there and leave everybody else alone.

          1. "Ummm, have you been to twitter?"

            Serious question: do you think that there are more conservative perspectives on Twitter, or liberal perspectives on Parler?

            1. The former.

              But that's because Twitter is "mainstream", and ... doesn't censor "liberal perspectives" when they get inconvenient nearly as readily as "conservative perspectives".

              Parler is explicitly a place to go to ... not get censored by places like Twitter. So thus it will attract especially the people who ... get censored by places like Twitter.

              And then people on the internet will (and I have seen this on Facebook) make cutesy memes about how such places are Obviously Just For Nazis And Monsters.

              Because the GOOD people never get kicked off Twitter, because Twitter is on the right side. Well, at least if you have connections or are lucky.

              (N.b. I'm neither a "liberal" nor a "conservative", myself.)

              1. Regardless of the reasons (and plenty of lefties get kicked off of twitter as well, they just don't go to Parler), Parler is a place for radicals at the moment, with all that entails including the positive feedback loop of additional radicalization.

                Not a new thing in the slightest, in this land of free speech and narrowcasting.

                But know what it is, if only to properly understand should any changes in the commentariat be forthcoming.

                1. What did you expect would happen, when Twitter started banning mainstream conservative news pieces and mainstream conservatives.

                  I would expect nothing less than full scale migration away from Twitter from anyone who thinks they would be banned because of their mainstream center-right viewpoints.

                  You would do the same if it happened on the liberal end.

                  1. What did you expect would happen, when Twitter started banning mainstream conservative news pieces and mainstream conservatives.

                    Since they didn't do that the question is pointless.

              2. This is a totally reasonable argument, but the idea that you can just go to Twitter and say "ah, I see why Parler is how it is" or "woah, this is just as bad as Parler" is not such a reasonable argument.

              3. doesn’t censor “liberal perspectives” when they get inconvenient nearly as readily as “conservative perspectives”

                It seems to be taken as obvious fact by many here that Twitter and Facebook censor or suppress "conservative perspectives.”

                Is there actual evidence, beyond right-wing gripes, that this is so? I'd be inclined to doubt it, myself, since I don't see what they have to gain, unless you buy into the idea that Zuckerberg and Dorsey care more about about catering to liberals than making money.

                1. So, the clearest example is the Hunter Biden laptop story, from the NY Post. That was censored by Twitter.

                  Zuckerberg and Dorsey have more than enough money, and are willing to use their power to "censor" viewpoints they don't agree with.

                  1. The Hunter Biden laptop story. Really? Wow. You believe that nonsense?

                    1. 1. Why wouldn't you believe it, a priori? What basis do you have to believe it or not believe it? You don't believe Hunter Biden would drop off a laptop to be repaired?

                      2. On what basis do you think the story should be censored by internet organizations? Do you think only some stories should be censored, but not other stories? What's your view on what should be censored, and what shouldn't be?

                    2. Funny how the Wall Street Journal news division debunked it — while the yobboes on its editorial page were flogging it. Do you know why that is?

                    3. Why wouldn't I believe it?

                      To start with, it's being pushed by Giuliani, which automatically makes it suspect.

                      Further, the guy at the shop doesn't, frankly, seem all that credible.

                      Plus, it's obvious BS. Let's see some authentication of the various claims.

                    4. So, the problem here is, you're not believing something based on the person saying it, rather than the data itself. It's a logical fallacy. "Giuliani says it, so it must be false".

                      What you would want to do is look at the data at hand.

                      You wanted authentication. Here you go. A highly cited cyber security analyst uses the DKIM signature within the email to verify with a private key on Google’s servers that the sender, recipient, subject, date and body of the message from the e-mails on the computer. Impossible to fake, without hacking Google.


                      Now, perhaps you're going to disbelieve this too.

                      If you only believe items because one person says them, and automatically disbelieve items because a different party tells the story, without looking at the actual data... Then I don't know what to say anymore.

                    5. Oh, I don't know. But the porno flicks of Hunter they're playing on Taiwanese TV from files on the 'laptop from hell' kind of did it for me. The emails, none of which were denied, are there in black and white. There was no lying about poor Hunter passed out with a crack pipe in his mouth.

                      Not exactly nonsense.

            2. There are more conservative perspectives on Twitter than there are conservative perspectives on Parler.

    2. Given that the mainstream platforms were censoring newspapers recently, I'm not sure who's bubble is more fact-free. We certainly should trust Twitter to referee what the facts are.

      1. Twitter (corp) and friends aren't censoring of their own free will as every citizen might over their own platform. They are censoring under threat of section 230 changes, or outright breakup.

        The winner from the Democratic debates over greatest angry threats to them was Harris, who may be president by May.

        Ummm, hooray for free speech.

        1. Bullshit. They are censoring in pursuit of their personal partisan whims not under any sort of threat.

          1. It's unsupported to argue that 230 threats are coming from the left.

            LOL at the knee-jerk 'high-tech corporations aren't chasing profits, it's all part of the omnipresent leftist push by the elites!'

            1. Twitter, Facebook, Google, Apple, Microsoft -- all owned by leftists. Do you really think they are overcensoring the left in a misguided attempt to be fair?

              1. The idea that professionals follow the profit motive and not some secret partisan agenda is a pretty normal initial assumption to make.

                The general assumption by many here that someone cannot have politics and be a professional about it makes me wonder how y'all manage to do your jobs.

              2. First, as far as I know Apple doesn't have any sort of platform where censorship is relevant. So it's weird to bring them up at all.

                Second, do you think the way any of this works is that there's some sort of memo from the CEO like "please randomly censor 14% of conservative content because we don't like them and want to piss them off?" Because obviously there's tons of conservative content on all of these platforms so it's clearly not the case that all or even most of it gets removed. And certainly the CEO's of these companies (who don't "own" them) aren't involved with individual takedown decision--with the possible exception of what to do with Trump's posts.

                I'm not convinced that there's systematic bias against conservatives on any of these platforms (if anything, the evidence points to all of the social media platforms amplifying conservative messages more than liberal ones), but if there is the mechanism would be much more about the composition of the overall workforce than who sits in the CEO chair. All of these companies have content policies that require the exercise of human judgment, and the employee ranks of tech companies do indeed skew to the left, so it seems plausible that people will tend to give a bit more leeway to points of view that they agree with than those they don't. I think the tech companies should acknowledge this risk and try to mitigate it, but I also think that Republicans should maybe think about a political approach that isn't mostly focused on alienating more educated people and people in dense urban areas.

            2. Joe Biden:No, I’ve never been a fan of Facebook, as you probably know. I’ve never been a big Zuckerberg fan. I think he’s a real problem. I think ——

              Charlie Warzel: Can you elaborate?

              Joe Biden: No, I can. He knows better. And you know, from my perspective, I’ve been in the view that not only should we be worrying about the concentration of power, we should be worried about the lack of privacy and them being exempt, which you’re not exempt. [The Times] can’t write something you know to be false and be exempt from being sued. But he can. The idea that it’s a tech company is that Section 230 should be revoked, immediately should be revoked, number one. For Zuckerberg and other platforms.


              1. I will be surprised if this is a direction Biden wants to go. I go to plenty of left-wing sites, and don't see anything like the rage at 230 I see from conservatives. Heck, the left wing party base doesn't know what 230 means.

                I suspect Biden's priorities are not this.

                And beyond that, I'm quite sure Silicon Valley is not spooked by Biden, and it's a stretch to declare they are changing their policies to mollify him.

                1. The reason you see few to zero outrage posts on TheLeft re: 230 isn’t because they don’t know what 230 is and does. It’s because they do know what 230 is and does.

                  1. Not quite, IMO.

                    Left wing leadership may be talking about how these social media companies are troublingly large and influential, but they're not pushing 230 reform to their media outlets and followers on accounta, as you said, they know what it means. But the base doesn't know from 230, why would they? M4A and voting reform is what's up there.

                    Right Wing radio and whatnot do not much care about what 230 means, it's a convenient thing to fasten onto as red meat for their base. So Their base knows what 230 is, but not what it means.

                    See also: lets fight harder with China. The left doesn't care, the right passionately does but with a belligerently complete lack of nuance.

                2. "I suspect Biden’s priorities are not this."

                  Your subjective interpretation is not the point.

                  You stated "It’s unsupported to argue that 230 threats are coming from the left" yet proof is provided that the next president made a "230 threat"and you waive it off.


                  1. the next president

                    Careful, Bob.

                    You might get thrown out of the club.

            3. "It’s unsupported to argue that 230 threats are coming from the left."

              Here you go.

              "Sen. Mark Warner mentioned the anti-trafficking bill at a recent event and said that if internet companies don’t step up to prevent nefarious political actors online “you will see not only Section 230, but you will see whole changes that will require some responsibility from the content, but you will see even more.”"
              "California Sen. Kamala Harris said she was open to examining the protections. "I’d be interested in seeing what would be proposed specifically,” she said."

              1. Don't insult my intelligence. Cherry picking is not proof.

                You know where all the 230 repeal energy is coming from, and it's not the left.

                1. "Don’t insult my intelligence. Cherry picking is not proof."

                  Your intelligence gets offended by evidence now? Maybe you're insulting your own intelligence.

                  Elizabeth Warren: "I’m open to considering reforms to Section 230 that preserve the freedom of the internet while increasing accountability for tech platforms. "

                  Former U.S. President Barack Obama said that the extent to which social media companies claim they “are more like a phone company than they are like The Atlantic” is not “tenable,” he told the publication in an interview published Monday.

                  1. Again, AL, you can post quotes (some not even about 230!) but, again, it beggars belief to argue that the push to change 230 is coming from the Democratic Party more than the GOP.

                    I don't believe you believe this, and yet you are arguing it.

                    Yeah, I'm insulted you think I'd buy that, being as I read this blog.

                    1. ?? You said it's not coming from the left. It is coming from the left. It's coming from both sides, but it's not just the right.

                    2. TiP, do you read the VC when there are discussions about 230?

                      Remember, the original thesis is that Twitter is censoring conservatives because Democrats are threatening them via a repeal of 230 if they do not. That's way outta sync with reality.

                      Yeah, I'm pushing back on quotes as not proving that case. Because they do not. If there is a lift to reform 230 coming from the left, it's a long ways off considering how little they've socialized it with their voters.
                      On the other hand, if that's a thing the right wants to do, they have their base foaming for reform and taking down these evil companies.

                      This is the same nonsense as the Democrats are secretly for gun confiscation. Look at these quotes!
                      It's asking me to believe them and not my lying eyes.

                    3. "Yeah, I’m pushing back on quotes as not proving that case."

                      You're trying to claim that quotes from prominent leftists, including Obama, Biden, and Harris, making 230 threats don't show that there are 230 threats coming from the left.

                      And it's not working. The left has been very vocal with its base about getting tech companies to censor what the left sees as "misinformation", including using 230 threats.

                      And in the recent case, they were successful at getting tech companies to censor accurate information from the NY Post.

                    4. AL?

                2. 2 Senators isn't cherry picking, it will could be the margin of victory in the Senate.

                  Plus you have to look at the motivations of the 2 sides. Most of the energy for censorship is from the left. Repealing 230 could well end up causing more censorship. So I think the right doesn't really want to repeal section 230, they want to use it as leverage to force the social media companies to be more evenhanded.

                  1. " Most of the energy for censorship is from the left. "

                    An interesting point to peddle at a conservative blog -- The Volokh Conspiracy -- that engages in repeated, viewpoint-driven, partisan censorship of liberal-libertarian content.

                    Maybe try to find a forum that doesn't inherently mock your ostensible point?

            4. "It’s unsupported to argue that 230 threats are coming from the left."

              Gaslito strikes again

              Look at this bunch of obscure people:


              That Biden fellow. What ever came of him?

    3. You should vote with your feet.

    4. Why is the choice always the wild west vs. censoring on behalf of politicians?

      There is no honor in censoring harrassment because politicians will hurt your company if you don't, especially if the first demands out of their mouths are to label the statements of political opposition as harrassment, and you'd better censor it.

      I don't see a free-for-all of lies from top organizations as somehow worse.

    5. Are you Parsons from 1984?

  5. I joined parler just for fun, and followed VC there, but I'm a longtime RSS reader of the blog. I use The Old Reader (theoldreader.com). I hardly use twitter at all, so I never followed VC there.

    Parler seems unexciting so far. I hate ordinary Republicans and conservatives (VC itself is getting weaker, with people like Blackman involved), so there isn't much for me there. I tried searching for some video game postings, and mostly got repeated offers of nude photos from people claiming to be female gamers.

    1. Not to stir things up, but how do you distinguish conservatives from libertarians? More tribal affiliation?

      I use Feedly myself, and still miss Google Reader.

      1. blood tattoo?

        1. Wait. Why are we blowing by this nudes thing so fast?

          1. nude photos from people claiming to be female gamers
            Is that where they go after quitting their job at Shop Rite?

          2. Sarcastr0 is really stingy with his nudes.

  6. Fair number of comments here seem to assert that press freedom is actually improved by license to publish lies—not just disagreements, but actual, purposeful lies. And not just grudging acceptance either, but implications that publishing lies can be an improvement, because it makes press freedom more free.

    I don't think the government should be the judge of truth, or should intervene to punish falsehood—not even deliberate lies. Absent other considerations, fraud, for instance, that should not be the government's job.

    I do think that without a widely accepted norm that press freedom is harmed by publishing lies, press freedom cannot long endure.

    1. The press is full of lies, whether deliberate or from being sloppy. Among gun folk, it is a standing joke that they don't know the different between machine guns, select fire, semi-auto, bold action, lever action, anything; or the difference between bullets, cartridges, cases, rounds; or clips (of various sorts) and magazines.

      It doesn't take long to become familiar with how sloppy and inaccurate news articles are on subjects you are familiar with. I have seen maps which have cities 50 miles out of place, food charts which confuse everything which matters, and uncountable examples of just plain sloppy reporting. To trust them on subjects with which I have no familiarity is a bridge too far.

      1. Every expert, and even more so every policy affinity group has issues with press accuracy in their field of expertise/advocacy.

        But it's only the gun folks (well, conservatives generally) who call them liars about it, and to argue that this means they're not trustworthy for non-experts to rely on at first order.

        I could, and do, complain about the science media not taking the time to understand the basics of the big bang, which is not hard but which they never bother to study up on. It's suboptimal, but I get why it happens and I am all for those things being talked about with the concomitant inaccuracies. I just can't listen without cringing.

        1. When you have science media purposefully distorting their reporting to advance a sweeping agenda to limit constitutional rights that would be a fair comparison to the way the mainstream media treats guns.

        2. "But it’s only the gun folks (well, conservatives generally) who call them liars about it,"

          You've never seen the left call the right-wing media liars?

      2. Lies are deliberate. It's what distinguishes them from simple errors.
        Journalists who aren't arms experts describing "bullets, cartridges" and "rounds" less accurately than you'd like is not the same thing as a mainstream media outlet claiming things like Antifa is intentionally setting fires in the Western US leading to armed militias setting up illegal roadblocks and threatening citizens with violence as a result.

        Media outlets who are merely sloppy aren't intentionally creating divisions in society by spreading false information.

        It was interesting to see Tucker Carlson walk back his false claim that a specific dead person voted in Georgia only to then claim that lots of other dead people did vote without providing names or other evidence. That isn't sloppiness; it's at best intentional disregard for the truth. After being corrected on two names he claimed were dead voters, he doubled down. At this point, he knows or should know that this claims, barring confirmed evidence, are false and thus lies. And yet, thousands of FOX viewers watch and trust what he says. Worse, if he reported the actual facts, he probably wouldn't have a show; which is to say his open disregard for the facts isn't going to get him fired--it's the source of his income.

    2. Since when has it ever been illegal to publish lies in newspapers?

      Walter Duranty still has his Pulitzer for his catalog of lies in the New York Times.

      1. You know whose not to blame for that? The New York Times.

        In response to Stalin's Apologist (1990), the critical biography by Sally J. Taylor,The New York Times assigned a member of its editorial board, Karl Meyer, to write a signed editorial about Duranty's work for the Times. In a scathing piece, Meyer said that Duranty's articles were "some of the worst reporting to appear in this newspaper." Duranty, Meyer said, had bet his career on Stalin's rise and "strove to preserve it by ignoring or excusing Stalin's crimes.

        The Pulitzer Board in 1990 reconsidered the prize but decided to preserve it as awarded.

      2. Kazinski : Walter Duranty still has his Pulitzer for his catalog of lies in the New York Times.

        Two points :

        1. Made curious by Kazinski, I googled "positive press views of Hitler in the United States" and found they numbered aplenty.

        2. I then tried to imagine some Left-wing type butt-hurt today over bad reporting of the 1930s, no matter how blind that reporting was to the approaching tragedy. I tried, but couldn't pull it off. Nobody triggers like today's Right.

        Moral of the story? Right-wing types have many more ways to be butt-hurt than Left-wing types - and I'm happy with that distinction. Life's too short to be regurgitating bile 24/7.

  7. Is Parler just a conservative Twitter? No thanks. Twitter has contributed to the dumbing down of America, and I would be happy to see it collapse. We don't need a right wing version of the same.

    It's like saying we need a right-wing version of toxic waste, since all the toxic waste has a left-wing bias. Even if true, no need to expand the contamination.

  8. They require your Social Security number and their TOS provides zero protection. Run away.

    1. I didn't give them my social security number, and I have an account.

      I call bullshit.

      1. It is bullshit. A SSN or TIN is only needed if you join the Influencer Network:

        If you choose to join our influencer network, we may ask for information that can be used to verify your identity, such as a copy of your government-issued photo identification, and information that can be used to facilitate the redemption of virtual items or payments, such as your Social Security number (SSN) or your tax identification number. We delete your government-issued photo identification information when it is no longer necessary to verify your identity.

  9. Twitter, Parler, RSS, etc. Am I the only fan of the Volokh Conspiracy who reads the posts and comments the old-fashioned way, viz., by visiting its Reason website?

    Whistling Willie

    1. Old fashioned as in since late 2017?

  10. Pretty soon Newsmaxx and OANN will be talking about the Volokh Conspiracy. At that point, you know you've truly made it as a distinguished law professor.

    1. Are you implying it was a mistake for America's strong law schools in the liberal-libertarian mainstream to implement affirmative action for movement conservatives in faculty hiring?

  11. "We Now Have More Parler Subscribers Than Twitter Subscribers"

    In other words, 'we are now departing the American mainstream and entering the Clingerverse . . ."

  12. Where are the calls for "three cheers for capitalism." As other social media were said to discriminate against the right, the right found a competitor social media.

    That is how things are *supposed* to work in America. Competition is still alive and well.

  13. I find it funny that those who think Parler is some sort of evil conservative echo chamber seem to regard Twitter as being something other then the exact opposite.

  14. If one is judged by the company one keeps, having Parler followers is not something to be happy about

  15. Social media is a cancer.

Please to post comments