In all fairness, many people weren't aware of the indemnification clause and don't even know what such a clause does. I wonder if Twatter and other sites have indemnification clauses as well. It would be nice to find out.
I'm in favor of people fleeing the leftist-controlled anti-social media sites and going to newer sites that support free speech. I've made posts in support of this. However, I never said anyone had to go to Parler in particular, and I think people should read the terms of service before they sign up. Sadly, most people will not.
Of course, most people won't cause a lawsuit to be filed against Parler based on their posts either. But I support full transparency and awareness of these indemnification agreements.
How would they ever track down a user?? It's not as though they require tyrannical levels of personal information and a mandatory sign-iinnnn ... Oh, I get it.
Oh look another person who thinks you actually have to use your personal real number.......
Edit -- God I hope people aren't downvoting me because they're actually so stupid as to think I'm wrong... I mean if you really can't think of any way on the whole wide internet to get a usable phone number to punch in there, and even one that'll let you access it to get the code, then i'm not sure what to tell you... Surely not, hopefully people are just downvoting me because I'm a dick instead....
Oh look, another 'elite fake-number hax0r' who thinks Most people won't use their personal Real number, and is too short sighted to ask Why any honest, new, free speech platform would Want that much personal information, plus have a caveat that they can Fine / Sue You.
What is this Vee Pee Mim thingy you speak of, Oh Magician from the Future??
(ignoring that, while it has been done, suing "someone" from an IP is really iffy and in most instances the plaintiff would make better use of their time sitting upside-down and pissing into their own mouths)
Now, go even further back in time and tell Everyone Everywhere who will sign up there .. when it gets to be the year 2020 .. Before they do so. 🖖 Live long and prosper, Spaceman.
Bullshit, if they wanted to compete with Twitter they wouldn't make you sign up for their site to view it and you wouldn't have to give up your number. Not everyone knows how to get temporary text numbers. Likely not many do.
A) I do not use Twitter, B) it’s in their own Terms of Service. You’re saying Parler is attempting to manipulate me into not using them, and C) Parler is not nor will it ever be, competition for Twitter
I understand that - but Parler has not shown itself to be some evil entity yet. Both Parler and Gab and any other right leaning or centrist social media will be attacked and their ability to do business will also be attacked.
They WANT you undercutting and denigrating other centrist or right leaning sites.
Nilay Patel was a co-founder of The Verge and the site's first Managing Editor before taking over as Editor-in-Chief. He also was the acting Managing Editor for the launch of Vox.com. Vox is HARD Left and The Verve is also leftest. Pure poison pill because twitter is losing money and they want to stop it.
Far more anonymous posting rather than E celebs controlling the narrative. We shouldn't have had to do this site either if reddit wasn't so fucked in the first place.
It literally says Parler can sue you / you agree to pay their legal costs if anything you post or do on their platform causes them any type of legal litigation at all. That's not even remotely standard.
If I post something on there that says transgenderism is a mental illness and some company from the UK tries to sue them over hate speech, I'm now responsible for their legal fees.
Please explain how I'm wrong and I will shut my dumb mouth.
That's not entirely true. Indemnification clauses do not necessarily require a frivolous lawsuit. Just a lawsuit in general. The general idea is that if your conduct relating to the contract causes the other contracting party to get sued, you should pay his costs of defense (and maybe damages) since you allegedly caused the problem.
No one has to agree to this condition if they don't want to. I don't know if Gab has this clause in its terms of service, but maybe this board should find out.
Parler seems to be that honeytrap people have wondered about. They admit to using all your data, contacts and location and yadayadayada. They have tiered levels of 'free speech' apparently, ban for grotesque reasons and just don't seem kosher.
Be careful out there People, why do they insist on your phone?
Good points are being made about this. People should consider this carefully, especially since we're seeing some screenshots now showing people allegedly being censored on Parler for "obscene" material.
If Parler is not an actual free speech platform, then it largely defeats the purpose of fleeing from Twatter.
For the sake of argument let us say Parler was sued for something a person posted and tied to pass legal fees down to the poster.
Don't you think that would be published all over social media and effectively put an end to Parler?
Libel is a type of defamation, or communication of FALSE information that harms the reputation of an individual, business, or group.With libel, the offending material is written or printed, involves pictures, or is in any format other than spoken words or gestures.
Slander is also a type of defamation, or communication of FALSE information that harms the reputation of an individual, business, or group.With slander , the offending material in spoken words or gestures.
Satire Is Protected Free Speech. See Hustler v. Falwell
I guess people don't understand that this is common sense when you are going to have a site that's for real free speech...
So when you post shit that gets them wrapped up in court because it was illegal, or for a civil-court reason, this gives them the right to at least bill you to make people be responsible for their own actions while being able to operate a truly free speech zone...
People have to use common sense.... It's imperative.
are people here really going to tell me that they expect parler to pay for the legal fees that result from a post that you make? A post that you would cry like a little bitch if they removed because "they're supposedly free speech", but can still, in fact, get them wrapped up in God knows how much court costs and lawyer fees because of said post that you made.....
Again... Use common sense.
If you want a completely free speech site that is also mainstream, then how exactly do you expect them to protect themselves or remain a business and make money? if the left wants them gone they will certainly sue them into submission or make sure they never get any type of advertising..... Nobody ever thinks about all that .. they just want the perfect product instantly and to hell with all of the 10 million details
If any lawyer pedes are here doing nothing then please explain to us dumb assess why you aren't busy suing your state politicians for breaches of the constitution?
I'm an attorney but I'm willing to admit that I'm not an expert in this area.
But my first reaction is that this could be a good clause because it somewhat disincentivizes people from suing Parler for the purpose of bankrupting them with frivolously lawsuits.
Otherwise soros/dems will create a thousand fake accounts, say bad illegal things about himself, and then sue Parler.
This doesnt completely protect parler but its an interesting step.
And to some extent this doesnt matter, because Parler is covered under 230, so as long as its a platform, then you cant sue Parler for the things its users say anyways.
Just my first thoughts. I'd like to hear other takes from lawyers. But most of the other stuff posted here is just ignorant people screeching.
I'm not a lawyer.... but I've worked for them for many years. So I'm a paralegal. (Yeah, yeah, go ahead and crack the barely legal jokes. I didn't even want this job to begin with, but it pays the bills... for now).
It's an indemnification clause. It requires you pay the costs of defense (and maybe resulting damages from a lawsuit) if Parler gets sued for your postings or activity on the site. You'll definitely think it's a bad thing if Parler gets sued because you organized a protest someone didn't like or defamed somebody online.
Of course, there's the counterargument no one is thinking about. Platforms such as Parler and Twatter are supposed to be immune from lawsuits based upon the postings of their users under the Communications Decency Act, which theoretically makes a lawsuit against Parler (and a resulting indemnification clause) largely irrelevant.
In today's society of cancel culture thru suing it does not seem unreasonable.
If I give you a free format to speak your mind and I get sued for YOUR terroristic comment or posting child porn, I'm going to claim that I did not post this and point my finger at you. It's a hold harmless agreement.
That's what Section 230 does already. It protects online platforms from being sued or brought litigation against from something that someone has posted on their site. The site is only required to remove it if it is reported but is not legally required to remove all illegal material and content as it is posted, that is unreasonable.
Go look up how many times Twitter has been sued because of something that someone posted on their site.
The shilling for Parler is insane lately. Wonder how much it cost them.
Gab > Parler > Twitter
In all fairness, many people weren't aware of the indemnification clause and don't even know what such a clause does. I wonder if Twatter and other sites have indemnification clauses as well. It would be nice to find out.
I'm in favor of people fleeing the leftist-controlled anti-social media sites and going to newer sites that support free speech. I've made posts in support of this. However, I never said anyone had to go to Parler in particular, and I think people should read the terms of service before they sign up. Sadly, most people will not.
Of course, most people won't cause a lawsuit to be filed against Parler based on their posts either. But I support full transparency and awareness of these indemnification agreements.
How would they ever track down a user?? It's not as though they require tyrannical levels of personal information and a mandatory sign-iinnnn ... Oh, I get it.
Use a fake number, man. Twitter does the same thing.
And if you are posting things that are illegal - you SHOULD be liable for that.
So what's "illegal"? Misgendering some Xer? Saying "All lives matter"? Hiding Jews in the attic?
They would already have 230 protections.
Saying illegal things are Already illegal.
There's no excuse for an additional Reverse 230 clause.
Edit: nevermind. I see you mentioned that illegal postings are already illegal, which is your main point.
Oh look another person who thinks you actually have to use your personal real number.......
Edit -- God I hope people aren't downvoting me because they're actually so stupid as to think I'm wrong... I mean if you really can't think of any way on the whole wide internet to get a usable phone number to punch in there, and even one that'll let you access it to get the code, then i'm not sure what to tell you... Surely not, hopefully people are just downvoting me because I'm a dick instead....
Oh look, another 'elite fake-number hax0r' who thinks Most people won't use their personal Real number, and is too short sighted to ask Why any honest, new, free speech platform would Want that much personal information, plus have a caveat that they can Fine / Sue You.
What is this Vee Pee Mim thingy you speak of, Oh Magician from the Future??
(ignoring that, while it has been done, suing "someone" from an IP is really iffy and in most instances the plaintiff would make better use of their time sitting upside-down and pissing into their own mouths)
Now, go even further back in time and tell Everyone Everywhere who will sign up there .. when it gets to be the year 2020 .. Before they do so. 🖖 Live long and prosper, Spaceman.
I was on the fence about making an account over there. This seals it for me. Fuck all these assholes
You are being manipulated by people that just do not want Twitter to have competition.
Bullshit, if they wanted to compete with Twitter they wouldn't make you sign up for their site to view it and you wouldn't have to give up your number. Not everyone knows how to get temporary text numbers. Likely not many do.
You know there's Gab as well, right?
A) I do not use Twitter, B) it’s in their own Terms of Service. You’re saying Parler is attempting to manipulate me into not using them, and C) Parler is not nor will it ever be, competition for Twitter
I think you are being manipulated by people that do not want competition for Twitter.
I understand that - but Parler has not shown itself to be some evil entity yet. Both Parler and Gab and any other right leaning or centrist social media will be attacked and their ability to do business will also be attacked.
They WANT you undercutting and denigrating other centrist or right leaning sites.
Nilay Patel was a co-founder of The Verge and the site's first Managing Editor before taking over as Editor-in-Chief. He also was the acting Managing Editor for the launch of Vox.com. Vox is HARD Left and The Verve is also leftest. Pure poison pill because twitter is losing money and they want to stop it.
All social media is cancer, stop trying to make alternatives. Burn it all down.
You know this site is social media.
Do we not socially share media here?
Tons of people use Twitter with fake names. Also, nobody’s stopping you from using your real name here.
Far more anonymous posting rather than E celebs controlling the narrative. We shouldn't have had to do this site either if reddit wasn't so fucked in the first place.
Yeah. We need to avoid hypocrisy as much as possible.
It literally says Parler can sue you / you agree to pay their legal costs if anything you post or do on their platform causes them any type of legal litigation at all. That's not even remotely standard.
If I post something on there that says transgenderism is a mental illness and some company from the UK tries to sue them over hate speech, I'm now responsible for their legal fees.
Please explain how I'm wrong and I will shut my dumb mouth.
Always post the truth and you won't successfully sued.
P.S. Gender dysphoria is a mental illness per The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5)
That's not entirely true. Indemnification clauses do not necessarily require a frivolous lawsuit. Just a lawsuit in general. The general idea is that if your conduct relating to the contract causes the other contracting party to get sued, you should pay his costs of defense (and maybe damages) since you allegedly caused the problem.
No one has to agree to this condition if they don't want to. I don't know if Gab has this clause in its terms of service, but maybe this board should find out.
Parler seems to be that honeytrap people have wondered about. They admit to using all your data, contacts and location and yadayadayada. They have tiered levels of 'free speech' apparently, ban for grotesque reasons and just don't seem kosher.
Be careful out there People, why do they insist on your phone?
https://files.catbox.moe/a3wkje.png
Good points are being made about this. People should consider this carefully, especially since we're seeing some screenshots now showing people allegedly being censored on Parler for "obscene" material.
If Parler is not an actual free speech platform, then it largely defeats the purpose of fleeing from Twatter.
ahhh... that explains it all. Parler ** is ** Conservative Inc... https://www.storyteller.pw/2020/06/gabs-new-rival-parler-aka-twitter-20.html
For the sake of argument let us say Parler was sued for something a person posted and tied to pass legal fees down to the poster.
Don't you think that would be published all over social media and effectively put an end to Parler?
Libel is a type of defamation, or communication of FALSE information that harms the reputation of an individual, business, or group.With libel, the offending material is written or printed, involves pictures, or is in any format other than spoken words or gestures.
Slander is also a type of defamation, or communication of FALSE information that harms the reputation of an individual, business, or group.With slander , the offending material in spoken words or gestures.
Satire Is Protected Free Speech. See Hustler v. Falwell
noo...the people who require you to make an account with your phone number were pieces of shit the whole time? gtfo.
I blame Bongino, he has to apologize for that shit.
Apologize? I hope the people forcing you to use Parler are arrested.
I guess people don't understand that this is common sense when you are going to have a site that's for real free speech...
So when you post shit that gets them wrapped up in court because it was illegal, or for a civil-court reason, this gives them the right to at least bill you to make people be responsible for their own actions while being able to operate a truly free speech zone...
People have to use common sense.... It's imperative.
are people here really going to tell me that they expect parler to pay for the legal fees that result from a post that you make? A post that you would cry like a little bitch if they removed because "they're supposedly free speech", but can still, in fact, get them wrapped up in God knows how much court costs and lawyer fees because of said post that you made.....
Again... Use common sense.
If you want a completely free speech site that is also mainstream, then how exactly do you expect them to protect themselves or remain a business and make money? if the left wants them gone they will certainly sue them into submission or make sure they never get any type of advertising..... Nobody ever thinks about all that .. they just want the perfect product instantly and to hell with all of the 10 million details
I agree with both of you.
There "should" not be any repercussions.
But there may be lawsuits of people testing it.
Who pays the fees?
Remember, there's the truth and there's what you can prove in court.
And proving it in court costs money.
It's an indemnification clause. I've never heard of it described as "reverse 230" before.
Indemnification clauses force you to pay the costs of defense (and potentially any award of damages) for the other person in the contract.
Lesson to be learned here: read every contract (including terms of service agreements) before you sign.
https://youtu.be/a4TPo8eYEs0?t=44
I'm not sure that's a bad thing.
Need some lawyerpedes to break this down for us.
They could be saying don't break the law. Don't use us to organize your terrorist groups.
If so, we won't go to bat for you.
If you drag us into your BS, you pay our attorney fees.
Any attorneys?
If any lawyer pedes are here doing nothing then please explain to us dumb assess why you aren't busy suing your state politicians for breaches of the constitution?
You don't have standing to sue. I think there shouldn't be a standing requirement but the court have decided that it exists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)#United_States
I'm an attorney but I'm willing to admit that I'm not an expert in this area.
But my first reaction is that this could be a good clause because it somewhat disincentivizes people from suing Parler for the purpose of bankrupting them with frivolously lawsuits.
Otherwise soros/dems will create a thousand fake accounts, say bad illegal things about himself, and then sue Parler.
This doesnt completely protect parler but its an interesting step.
And to some extent this doesnt matter, because Parler is covered under 230, so as long as its a platform, then you cant sue Parler for the things its users say anyways.
Just my first thoughts. I'd like to hear other takes from lawyers. But most of the other stuff posted here is just ignorant people screeching.
I'm not a lawyer.... but I've worked for them for many years. So I'm a paralegal. (Yeah, yeah, go ahead and crack the barely legal jokes. I didn't even want this job to begin with, but it pays the bills... for now).
It's an indemnification clause. It requires you pay the costs of defense (and maybe resulting damages from a lawsuit) if Parler gets sued for your postings or activity on the site. You'll definitely think it's a bad thing if Parler gets sued because you organized a protest someone didn't like or defamed somebody online.
Of course, there's the counterargument no one is thinking about. Platforms such as Parler and Twatter are supposed to be immune from lawsuits based upon the postings of their users under the Communications Decency Act, which theoretically makes a lawsuit against Parler (and a resulting indemnification clause) largely irrelevant.
In today's society of cancel culture thru suing it does not seem unreasonable.
If I give you a free format to speak your mind and I get sued for YOUR terroristic comment or posting child porn, I'm going to claim that I did not post this and point my finger at you. It's a hold harmless agreement.
That's what Section 230 does already. It protects online platforms from being sued or brought litigation against from something that someone has posted on their site. The site is only required to remove it if it is reported but is not legally required to remove all illegal material and content as it is posted, that is unreasonable.
Go look up how many times Twitter has been sued because of something that someone posted on their site.
And here I thought nobody had thought of this argument yet.
Bingo
Bongino