Mediaboss Marketing

Parler, a social network adopted by the far right and recently kicked off AWS for its userbases habit of advocating violence, is back online. The restoration questions the notion that big tech can take and keep an unwanted presence offline, but Parlers return is not quite a triumph, and its new CEO doesnt suggest much of a change in philosophy.

Users can now log in to Parler on the web, but when they do they will find that all their old posts and content have been removed. Its unclear whether this was a consequence of the hurried exit from AWS last month, a scorched-earth policy regarding the content that got the site in hot water in the first place or for some other reason.

Fortunately someone had the presence of mind to make a backup, though not with the intention of restoring it. @donk_enby scraped millions of posts and media files from the site for posterity, something that has already borne fruit as researchers have used the files to show, for example, where certain users were on the day of the Capitol riots. (She is currently pointing out various problems with the new Parlers web rollout.)

The new site is described in a statement as using sustainable, independent technology and not reliant on so-called Big Tech for its operations. The new host is SkySilk, seemingly a reseller of OVHcloud, and Ive asked if the company plans to enforce its terms, which generally but not specifically prohibit things like threats of violence. (The details of the terms violations were made more public in Parlers attempt to force Amazon to reinstate it.)

Update: SkySilk has issued a statement explaining that it is hosting Parler because of its position on free speech, which reads in part:

Skysilk does not advocate nor condone hate, rather, it advocates the right to private judgment and rejects the role of being the judge, jury, and executioner. Unfortunately, too many of our fellow technology providers seem to differ in their position on this subject.

SkySilk truly believes and supports the freedom of speech and more specifically the rights afforded to us in the First Amendment. This is a non-negotiable issue for us. And while we may disagree with some of the sentiment found on the Parler platform, we cannot allow first amendment rights to be hampered or restricted by anyone or any organization.

SkySilk will support Parler in their efforts to be a nonpartisan Public Square as we are convinced this is the only appropriate course of action.

Parler, for its part, aims to make itself a bit less of an easy target by upping its moderation game. The site will supposedly be using both AI and human moderators to watch for content that could rock the boat though Facebook has been trying this for years and still hasnt quite got the hang of it.

They may have an easier job of it, considering Parler is still barred from the Google Play Store and iOS App Store. Thats a huge damper on activity, since mobile users make up a large part of social networks. So the flood of content the site could not adequately monitor in early January may have slowed to a trickle. (Ive asked the company for more information on this and other matters and will update this post if I hear back.)

Meanwhile, the operation is being overseen by a new interim CEO after the ouster of John Matze by the board. The one to fill the role is Mark Meckler, founder of the Tea Party Patriots, staunch opponents of Obamacare and big fans of debunked COVID-19 treatment hydroxychloroquine. The group was also behind the infamous Americas Frontline Doctors event and was one of the organizers of the March to Save America that turned into the Capitol Riots.

Mecklers pedigree suggests that despite the claimed moderation improvements, this is hardly Parler turning a new leaf, and SkySilk may be disappointed that its nonpartisan public square will be led by a hyperpartisan conservative activist (and is funded and populated by same). With the deliberate (and apparently unavoidable) break with Big Tech, however it is defined, and a CEO who embodies the same qualities that ran amok before, it seems a lot more like stubborn defiance than introspection and graceful compromise.

Read more:
Parler crawls back online empty and with a Tea Party CEO - TechCrunch

National Review

After a campaign in which Joe Biden expressed supreme confidence that he could bring an end to, or at least substantially curb the damage wrought by, the coronavirus pandemic, his administrations handling of the pandemic has left much to be desired. Rewind back to last fall. Biden was giving speeches about how while he trusted vaccines in general, he didnt trust Donald Trump, and was thus skeptical of the coronavirus vaccines in particular. Bidens running mate, then-senator Kamala Harris, said that shed be hesitant to take a vaccine that came out during Trumps term. When pressed about whether she would do so if Dr. Anthony Fauci and other reputable health authorities endorsed it, she doubled down: Theyll be muzzled; theyll be suppressed. By December, it was clear that the vaccines were in fact on the brink of FDA approval, and that by the time Biden and Harris took their respective positions atop the executive branch, distribution would be well underway. Biden received the Pfizer vaccine mid-month, and Harris got it just before the years end. It was only right that the principals of the incoming administration should be protected. But it remains the case that Biden and Harris, without basis, undermined confidence in a medical miracle for their own political benefit and then jumped to the front of the considerable line for it. After receiving the vaccine, Biden moved into the White House with a mandate to get the pandemic under control. He announced his moonshot plan for national vaccination: administering 100 million shots by his 100th day in office. This was a dishonest PR ploy. During the week of Bidens inauguration, the U.S. averaged 983,000 vaccinations a day, meaning the administration was setting itself a benchmark it could already be assured of hitting. Naturally, the public noticed, and almost immediately Biden was forced to increase his goal: He would now be aiming for an average of 1.5 million vaccinations a day at the end of his first 100 days. Already, weve reached that higher target, and not because of the Biden administrations novel efforts. As National Reviews Jim Geraghty has reported, the Biden administrations vaccination plan includes new federal sites, but no more doses of the vaccine. This presents not an opportunity to expand vaccination efforts there are already plenty of places where people can be inoculated but a bureaucratic obstacle that has made things harder on the states, some of which were not even aware that additional doses would not be made available at the new sites. Even worse, yesterdays Morning Jolt noted that theres still a substantial gap between the number of vaccines provided by Pfizer and Moderna and the number of vaccines actually being administered: As of this morning, according to the New York Times, Moderna and Pfizer have shipped more than 70 million doses to the states, and somehow the states have gotten only 52.8 million of those shots into peoples arms. The Bloomberg chart has a slightly better figure, showing states have administered 54.6 million doses, out of roughly the same total. That leaves anywhere from 15.4 to 17.2 million doses either in transit or sitting on shelves somewhere. The country is vaccinating about 1.67 million people per day according to the Times data, 1.69 million per day on the Bloomberg chart. Not great. The Biden administration has been similarly lackadaisical in its approach to school reopenings. White House press secretary Jen Psaki announced last week that its goal was to have 51 percent of schools open at least one day a week. This target suffers from the same problem as the vaccination target: Its already been met, and exceeded. Around 64 percent of school districts were already offering some kind of in-person instruction when Psaki spoke. The objective, given the enormous costs of virtual instruction on students, should be to open up the remaining 36 percent and turn partial reopenings back into full-time ones. To some extent, Biden walked Psakis stunningly slothful goal back during a CNN town-hall event on Tuesday, saying I think many of them [will be open] five days a week. The goal will be five days a week, and calling Psakis statement a mistake. Questions remain, though: If it was only a mistake, why did it take a week for it to be corrected? And why is the correction so vague as to leave room for fudging? How many, exactly, constitutes many to the Biden administration? Bidens expectations game is a symptom of a greater problem: He never had the plan for handling the pandemic that he said he did. His campaign-season contention that he did was always a smoke-and-mirrors act that had more to do with tone and messaging than it did policy. To cover up the absence of tangible changes that its brought to the table, the new administration has tried to flood the zone with already achieved objectives and then tout their achievement as accomplishments. Dishonesty has many forms, and the Biden administration has proven itself no more forthright than its predecessors, even if its deceptions are sometimes more artful.

Read more here:
Tea Party movement trying to regroup in the post-Trump era - Yahoo News

By Yonel Pierre

Years ago, while a political science doctoral student at the City University of New York, I nearly made myself a laughingstock during a dialogue with a professor.

The discussion centered around the issue of whether the U.S. could ever become a multi-party system in the same sense as counterpart Western democratic nations. I suggested the possibility of a breakdown within the two-party system resulting in space for a strong third party to quickly emerge. By then, the U.S. had already experienced the presence of a handful of weak and failed third parties. Therefore, it was easy to laugh at my suggestion. In short, the professor flatly refuted my assertion.

In her disdain, she mockingly inquired if I was insinuating a return to the colonial revolutionary time and the Boston Tea-party movement of the 1770s. Challenged by such a world-renowned expert, I simply backed down; I had no theory to support my thought at the time.

We are arguably a strong democracy -- but not the only one. What makes us exceptional? As others, we have flaws, our own moments of national vulnerability, such as the Civil War. The recent mob-like invasion of the U.S. Capitol building was another.

Admittedly, the past four years of the Trump administration taught us a good lesson. It showed that we are not immune to the infiltration of political elements normally foreign to our electoral practices. Otherwise, conventionally, a Donald J. Trump could not have become president here. He became the 45th president on our watch. And his four-year term saw unwavering support from the political base that propelled his ascension to power, regardless of his obvious commitment to create a divisive American society.

Most followers of Donald Trump today hold the same beliefs as the Tea party members. They believe they have been wronged by the Washington political establishment; more recently, that the presidential election was stolen from them; that their very liberty is in danger, unless they do something about it -- by any means possible.

If at the time of our dialogue my distinguished professor was right in refuting my thought of a possible challenging third party, today, we may infer that the U.S. two-party political system is at crossroads and no longer immune to radical transformation.

Trump, regardless of his lack of preparedness when he took office and his unorthodox and haphazard governing style, managed to command a large following in the American electorate. It is worth noting that, in the U.S. electoral history, he has been the only losing presidential candidate to amass 74 million votes.

To some, that may be impressive, to others scary. But the fact remains that a strong socio-political movement was born. He has given a voice to an angry and disgruntled political force that waited in silence. The terroristic invasion of the Capitol serves as a reminder. And on multiple occasions, Trump also reminds us that he will be back. With that statement, one may infer with a high degree of certainty that the U.S. is experiencing the resurgence of a third political party unlike any other. Lets call it Trumpism, until a better term is made available.

No matter the outcome of the impeachment trial in the Senate, Trumpism as a new political party and interest movement will still take its place in our electoral system with members running for various public offices. That puts Donald Trump right back at the center of U.S. politics.

Trumpism was in part given birth by the Republican political party and its characteristics reflect key republican ideologies and values. That creates an electoral threat for a strong and competitive Republican political party base. It will weaken the GOP and make it less competitive in the long run. The Republican Party will be less likely to win national elections in a three-way electoral contest. As a result, the Republican political party, as we knew it, will be the hostage of the political child-party that sprang from it.

Perhaps, in a sense, we are reliving the Tea party era. Time will tell. However, in our country and elsewhere, all indications point to the fact that populism has been on the rise. People all over the world have grown in distaste for career politicians. Trumpism benefits from this worldwide political phenomenon. And, because of its anticipated methods of operation, it must be viewed as a Tea-party type of a modern political challenge of our time.

Yonel Pierre of Jersey City holds a Ph.D. in Public Affairs and Administration.

Send letters to the editor and guest columns for The Jersey Journal to jjletters@jjournal.com.

Go here to read the rest:
Trumpism: End of the GOP as we know it and dawn of a multi-party system? | Opinion - NJ.com

The Wrap

Netflix has ordered a live-action series that will feature Wednesday Addams, the gothic familys daughter, which will be directed by Tim Burton. Netflix describes Wednesday as a sleuthing, supernaturally infused mystery charting Wednesday Addams years as a student at Nevermore Academy. Wednesdays attempts to master her emerging psychic ability, thwart a monstrous killing spree that has terrorized the local town, and solve the supernatural mystery that embroiled her parents 25 years ago all while navigating her new and very tangled relationships at Nevermore. The character was most notably played by Christina Ricci in films The Addams Family and Addams Family Values. Lisa Loring starred as the character in the 1960s Addams Family TV series, and Chlo Grace Moretz voices her in the most recent animated films. Depending on the adaptation, Wednesday is either the older or younger sister to her brother, Pugsly. Along with directing, Burton will executive produce alongside Smallville creators Alfred Gough and Miles Millar, who will serve as head writers and showrunners. Additional executive producers include Andrew Mittman for 1.21, Kevin Miserocchi, Kayla Alpert, Jonathan Glickman for Glickmania, and Gail Berman. The series is from MGM/UA Television. Also Read: Michael Keaton Drama 'Worth' Picked Up by Netflix and Obamas' Higher Ground Productions The Addams Family, first created by cartoonist Charles Addams in 1938, has had numerous on-screen iterations. The most notable version came in the 1990s with a pair of live-action films starring Ricci, Raul Julia, Anjelica Huston, Christopher Lloyd. There was also an animated TV series around that same time. The most recent version has been a computer-animated film in 2019, with a sequel planned for 2021. Burton is known for similar films to Addams Familys general gothic-comedy tone such as Edward Scissorhands, The Nightmare Before Christmas and Beatlejuice. Read original story Tim Burton-Directed Wednesday Addams Series Set at Netflix At TheWrap

See original here:
Bachelor Alum Jared Haibon Doesn't Think Chris Harrison's Apology Is Enough I Bachelor Tea Party - Yahoo Entertainment

Parler, the preferred social media platform for the far-right, announced Monday that it was back online after it was dropped by an Amazon hosting service on January 11.

The site became a haven for pro-Trump extremists ahead of, and during, the Capitol insurrection. Amazon Web Services (AWS) found that it "poses a very real risk to public safety."

On Monday, the company announced that site was up and running with a Tea Party co-founder serving as interim CEO. Mark Meckler, an attorney, political activist, and founder of the Tea Party Patriots, replaced former CEO and co-founder John Matze, whowas fired by the company's board earlier this month.

Read more: How Silicon Valley banished Donald Trump in 48 hours

In a statement Monday, Meckler said,"Parler was built to offer a social media platform that protects free speech and values privacy and civil discourse," highlighting the platform's focus on freedom of speech.

"Parler is being run by an experienced team and is here to stay. We will thrive as the premier social media platform dedicated to free speech, privacy and civil dialogue," the statement, which was provided to Insider, said.

According to publicly available WHOIS data, the domain is registered with Epik, which also hosts Gab, another far-right social-media platform.

Parler is largely funded by Rebekah Mercer, a conservative megadonor whose family was among the most influential backers of then-candidate Donald Trump in 2016. Dan Bongino, a conservative activist, has also said he's a co-owner.

The company came under scrutiny after the Capitol insurrection as evidence emerged that therioters had used Parlerand other platforms to coordinate the attack.

Apple and Google removed Parler from their app stores shortly after the insurrection, saying it had continued to allow content that threatened to escalate violence in violation of their policies. Amazon then removed Parler's accessto its web-hosting services, and othertech companies refused to do businesswith it, effectively taking the platform offline.

Parler will immediately bring back its current users during the first week of the relaunch and intends to allow new users to sign up the following week, the statement said.

Read more:
Parler, a preferred social-media platform for the far-right, is back online with Mark Meckler as interim CEO - Business Insider