What's the Deal with Parler? Thoughts Post Fox Chicago News Interview

Last week I contributed to a Fox Chicago new story about Parler. I wanted to share more of my thoughts here. Because I have a lot of them and it may surprise some that my thoughts are not related to politics.

Parler is an app that touts itself as a social network and microblogging platform that allegedly will not censor free speech. It's similar to Twitter in its functions. 

I do not care to discuss the conservative-leaning audience appeal of the app because that's not the most fascinating thing to me. There's a lid for every pot, and Parler is that lid for a type of pot.

What got my attention are their Privacy Policy, Community Guidelines and Terms of Service (as of Nov 12, 2020).

Since I am frequently asked to contribute to news stories about social media privacy, I have a tendency to read the small print.

So I read Parler's small print.

I am skeptical of their claims of transparency and lack of censorship. And more so, I'm concerned with their privacy practices. Let's take a look at a few exerpts:

• "Parler may remove any content and terminate your access to the Services at any time and for any reason.."
• "Parler has no responsibility or liability to you arising from hacking event, data breach, theft, misuse of information, conspiracy, racket, fraud, act of terrorism [etc etc]"
• "You grant to Parler a license to any content posted by you to the Services, including a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute your content."

And here’s my favorite:

• "We do not rent, sell, or share information about you with nonaffiliated third parties for their direct marketing purposes unless we have your affirmative express consent. “ BUT in another paragraph, it says,"We may share any information we receive with vendors and service providers retained in connection with the provision of our Services. "

The CEO of Parler, John Matze, said that their terms, guidelines and policies use standard language, not much different than other social networks.

Then, is Parler different than any other social network?

Again, I'm talking about it structurally. Not whom it attracts but whom it claims to be.

While touting itself as transparent and non-censoring, Parler is less privacy-focused and more restrictive than other social networks.

The non-censorship statement in itself is vague. Because Parler is reserving the right to ban people and they have been banning people, mostly trolls (they called them "leftists" but trolls are trolls, they are non-partisan) who were posting inappropriate images... such as images of poop. ?? Interestingly, Twitter only bans one of the five behaviors listed by Matze. Poop is allowed on Twitter.

Additionally, Parler claims its content moderation policies are based on the positions of “the FCC and Supreme Court of the United States which enables free expression without violence and a lack of censorship" (Matze said in an email to The Washington Post). BUT the FCC does not regulate content. Nor does the Supreme Court.

Gizmodo points out, "In the end, Matze’s own rules are actually more restrictive than those of the FCC, which does allow “obscene, indecent, and profane,” content after 10 p.m.—the time of night the government thinks children go to sleep."

And when it comes to Privacy...

Parler asks for government IDs to unlock certain features. Mindy Robinson, a conservative political commentator spoke out about her disapproval when "she was not able to send a direct message on the app without providing a photo of her driver's license."

Parler also collects social security numbers from those who join their influencer program. Facebook collects taxpayer ID as well but in very specific and clearly stated and purposeful situations, such as when you need to be issued a tax form for revenue made from selling items on Marketplace. Or when you run political ads. Parler's collection purposes language is quite vague.

Matze defended the practice to CNBC, "On Parler, people get verified, people have phone numbers related to their accounts. People know they're acting and behaving as they would in a town square," he said.

That's a strange comment because in a town square people don't have to show their ID to enter or participate. There reference probably has to do with an effort to eliminate bots. But "bots" always find a way. Also, it doesn't address the core issue - is the collection of the data justified and how are they protecting the data, since it goest beyond typical collection practices?

And remember the earlier quote from the Privacy Policy: "Marketing. We do not rent, sell, or share information about you with nonaffiliated third parties for their direct marketing purposes unless we have your affirmative express consent. "?

They may not sell it, but they pass it along.

Trackers are easy to detect in code. According to a report from Exodus, Parler uses a few trackers, including Flurry Analytics. "Flurry is part of the Yahoo Developer network suite. Flurry's product, Flurry Analytics, offers mobile analytics, monetization, and advertising services." Flurry is owned by Oath which is a subsidiary of Verizon and also includes Aol and Yahoo.

Flurry is commonly used by mobile app developers. So again Parler is not any different. But it tries to give the impression that you're safer on Parler and that's just not the case.

In conclusion:

Parler's promise is all great talk for a young platform, although not quite supported by their policies. With growth will come more pressure and responsibility. More instances of people selling fake artifacts, and scamming other users. With users testing the boundaries and breaking laws. It's unavoidable. And their policies and safeguards will have to evolve.

For now, if you decide to join Parler, know that it's not different from any other social network when it comes to transparency, censorship, and privacy. Ironically, when it comes to privacy there's not enough transparency with Parler. And if you're tempted to say "yes but Facebook..." Facebook has had to change a lot and evolve their policies, which are lot more specific than Parler's. If they say they're better than Twitter and Facebook then they need to meet a higher standard. But right now, when it comes to Privacy they fall behind Twitter and Facebook. I would not put my data in Parler's hands.

P.S. Since launch Parler has made changes to their terms and policies. And I expect they will continue to do so. By the time you read this there may be new changes. And I hope they will be positive ones.