Verified by 
While the platform has existed for more than just the past few weeks, the amount of conversation and attention around the social media platform Parler has seemed to grow exponentially very recently. In the wake of the U.S. Presidential election, and with apparently increasing perceptions and expressions of a hostile media bias (the sense that the media has an inherent bias against positions one supports), we have moved beyond the attacks on mainstream media as "fake news" into the realm of social media as censoring 'free speech' and 'conservative viewpoints'. Prominent alt-right and conservative figures alike have expressed deep frustrations and concerns about content being flagged on Twitter or removed from Facebook. Despite that the said claims and content that lead to such censure are charitably described as misinformation, the social media giants have been working to address a significant and problematic spread of disinformation, baseless conspiratorial claims, and more.
As claims are flagged as potentially false or misleading, and frustration among some segments of the user base has grown, and they have become more vocal about concerns of infringement on what they perceive to be matters of fact (alternative facts, in many cases). The specter of 'free speech' has been raised. As a result, there have been a non-trivial number of social media users—a number of whom are concerned that their support for, and sharing of, content related to the Q conspiracy may get them "de-platformed"—who have begun to migrate to Parler.
Parler, as a social media platform, prides itself on its unflinching commitment to free speech and that it will not monitor, censor, or otherwise rein in just about any content. In reality (and in my experience on the platform), this has created an even deeper 'echo-chamber', one in which few if any alternate views find their way into conversations. The concept of group polarization and the shift toward more extreme positions has been a pretty consistent problem with social media for a long time now. We know that people tend to seek out confirming information and that they discount and disregard information and perspectives with which they disagree. Resulting from this combination of self-selection and algorithmic selection of content and messaging that adds fuel to the fire, we see the spiraling and acceleration of extremity of beliefs, and increasing adoption of positions that would not stand up to reality. This is most readily evident and exemplified in the conspiratorial thinking that is a central feature of QAnon adherents.
The appeal of a safe space, ironically enough, for those who hold contentious viewpoints about a wide range of issues is one that is predicated on some combination of the freedom (if not encouragement) to make statements that would be considered wildly offensive in most other circles. The ability to float ideas about conspiracies, and the deep state, and a stolen election, and a corrupt media—without any accountability, accuracy, or evidence that is verifiable—run free. It's a feature, not a bug. It is a space where ideas and actors, previously relegated to the darkest sectors of the web, have gathered to amplify and accelerate. Those with the most extreme positions are waiting for others to arrive, and to step into that web.
