Even here and among my pro life groups the tendency is very much right wing. Some are mandated by Catholic teaching (pro life, anti SSM, anti euthansia). However others are less clear, and on some personally I am more left wing. However the people here who are more vocally in line with Catholic teaching on pro life for example, mostly tend to be against measures to combat climate change (for example again).FB, Twitter, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, PBS, Nytimes, WA-PO, many daily newspapers, Time, National Geographic, most of Higher Education, most cable TV networks, Hollywood.
Not really. It’s their website, they can do what they want with it.It’s a legal quagmire they’ve invented for themselves.
It’s not “right wing” to oppose abortion, SSM, euthenasia. That’s the Natural Law.Even here and among my pro life groups the tendency is very much right wing. Some are mandated by Catholic teaching (pro life, anti SSM, anti euthansia). However others are less clear, and on some personally I am more left wing. However the people here who are more vocally in line with Catholic teaching on pro life for example, mostly tend to be against measures to combat climate change
Is this true though? Didn’t they release a bunch of rules, like no pornography, obscene names, no posting of fecal matter, etc (I like how the last one has to be said)Parler is 100% anti-censorship
I wouldn’t say it’s 100% anti-censorship. They do have Community Guidelines that can get one banned if they are violated. (pdf below) I’m on Parler. They have a great and growing #catholicparler community and the guidelines (similar to what we have here at CAF) allows for more productive conversations to happen. Right and left are allowed to speak freely as long as they speak respectfully.Is this true though? Didn’t they release a bunch of rules, like no pornography, obscene names, no posting of fecal matter, etc (I like how the last one has to be said)
Which is why Parler chooses it’s guidelines to be mainly within what is current FCC guidelines. There’s a difference between liberty within law and license to say any old thing that is on your mind. If they were 100% anti-censorship without any guidelines it would just be chaos rather than discourse.It does seem like ‘censorship’ though, it’s just considered acceptable by the people who don’t have to worry about their own views being censored. It’s a pretty subjective area, when we talk about what should be acceptable or not.
I’ve seen some vile things too. There are many who want it to fail and they often have an influx of troublemakers who aren’t there to talk but to troll. They eventually get weeded out and one can always personally block them from their feed.I’ve seen a bunch of vile things about race and gender so that place is definitely not for me.
It does. It’s heavily political right now due to those who are sick of being banned on other sites (namely Conservatives) just for voicing their opinions. It’s in it’s infancy though and as it grows, it will hopefully become more diverse in topic. I’ve seen many on there bring up that point. I like it but it may not be everyone’s cup of tea.It feels more of an American politics app at this point.
No they don’t, given that they’ve positioned themselves as a public forum and not a publisher. They can’t have it both ways.Facebook is a private company, and not a government entity. They have every right to censor what’s on their page, just as much as CAF does.
It sounds like any other social media. It is good to have choices.Right and left are allowed to speak freely as long as they speak respectfully.