Your really want me to expose you don't you? How convenient of you to not link to the Parler Guidelines that you quote out of. What was the reason not to link? You thought I am a dummy who can't look up the Parler Guidelines and not see for myself and just accept your arguments at face value?

> Here's their exact words:

> We prefer to leave decisions about what is seen and who is heard to each individual. _In no case will Parler decide what will content be removed or filtered, or whose account will be removed, on the basis of the opinion expressed within the content at issue._

Right. And as usual you conveniently skipped the part that comes after this in the "Principles" section which is what any leftist liberal would do. This again busts your propaganda about Parler allowing violence, hate speech on their platform as being mentioned in their policy. Lie by selectively quoting guidelines. You can play this game all you want but it won't work in a Court of Law nor will it work with me. All Parler has to do now is sue Amazon for lying in their email that Parler doesn't have a policy on tackling hate speech.

> My comment repeatedly says Parler allows hate speech

Bullcrap. I'll disprove your nonsense by quoting straight out of the Parler Guidelines:

"Parler will not knowingly allow itself to be used as a tool for crime, civil
torts, or other unlawful acts. We will remove reported member content that a
reasonable and objective observer would believe constitutes or evidences
such activity. We may also remove the accounts of members who use our
platform in this way.

Sometimes the law properly requires us to exclude content from our
platform once it is reported to us or to our Community Jury—content we
would make it a priority to exclude anyway. Obvious examples include:
child sexual abuse material, content posted by or on behalf of terrorist
organizations, intellectual property theft.

However, even when the law may not require us to flag or remove reported
content, or to ban a member, we will nonetheless do so when we deem it
necessary to prevent our services from being used by someone in the
commission of a crime or civil tort—particularly when these are likely to
interfere with our mission of providing a welcoming, nonpartisan Public
Square. Examples include criminal solicitation, fraud, and nuisance."

In case you did not know the meaning, "civil torts" encompasses hate speech and much much more.

LINK TO THE PARLER GUIDELINES (because you were scared to link it in the first place): https://legal.parler.com/documents/guidelines.pdf

----

> Stop doing this. Stop trying to throw up a smoke screen by building up strawman after straw man.

I am not. You are. You just embarrassed yourself by selectively quoting from the guidelines. Stop lying to just prove a point. By not linking to the Guidelines you made it amply clear what your intent is.

----

> I won't answer you anymore until you answer two questions:

You won't be able to answer after you read this comment anyways. I did not want to embarrass you but you are repeatedly asking for it so I'll gladly oblige.

----

> Answer thise questions, not with another unrelated question or diatribe which I'll easily dismantle.

You couldn't dismantle anything. On the contrary I dismantled your lie that Parler doesn't have a hate speech policy in place.

> Just yes or no, or you'll have shown who's really beating around the bush

> 1. Does Parler allow hate speech (with the reminder that it is not illegal in their jurisdiction)

NO. I just disproved it quoting straight from their guidelines. They even have guidelines on how to report illegal and hate content here: https://legal.parler.com/documents/Parler-Community-Jury.pdf

> 2. Do you believe Twitter only deletes Right Wing content.

YES. Left wingers are left untouched. The only time the left wing was up in arms against Twitter was when their bot/fake/pseudonym-based accounts were deleted and they trended #StopTheLeftPurge. No prominent left winger was banned. No account of any prominent left winger who called for assassination of Trump was banned. Most prominent left wingers were left alone with just a rap on their knuckle after they posted incendiary tweets (some of them were even anti-semetic). And those who posted anti-semetic tweets were Congressmen/women. Not some lunatic with zero followers and with low engagement tweets. If a prominent Right wing account had posted something similar they would have gotten an insta-ban. That ex-PM of Malaysia literally called for genocide of millions of French. Was his account banned? Nope. After that there have been multiple terror attacks in France. If Trump's speech can be linked to US Capitol violence then why can't the ex-PM of Malaysia's tweet be linked to the series of terror attacks that put France on the edge? See the dichotomy?

Do you have evidence of any prominent Left wing personality being banned from Twitter? I can give you examples of hundreds of prominent Right wing personalities purged from Twitter. Name one prominent left wing personality who was banned from Twitter. I'll wait.

----

Now instead of arguing with me if you had just bothered to look this up yourself you would have gotten to the truth. But nope. You want to waste your time and my time going around in circles and posting ridiculous analogies. And even worse you are unable to comprehend anything in full. Be it the article which I linked of Amazon falsely accusing Parler or the Parler Guidelines themselves. This is because you are more interested in proving me wrong than trying to understand the subject matter at hand. In the process you are just exposing yourself completely.

I have answered all your questions without beating around the bush or posting stupid analogies. After this point I won't give any further replies as the discussion is devolving into an argument over who is right and who is wrong rather than the pressing issue of Big Tech dominance (Which is what I am concerned about and which you seem to not care about - which is fine as well. To each his own).