How to install Parler on an Android Phone

I noticed many people have complained that the Parler app is not longer available on the Google PlayStore. You can still manually download the APK file and install it yourself.

The steps are fairly simple. This is the first thing that comes up in google when you good "how to install an apk on android" and it looks fairly accurate. I will expand on point 1 below. For point 3 you want want to use a file manager to make the process easier but it is not necessary. The video shows a pretty good FM but there are many others.

1. Download the APK you want to install.
2. Navigate to your phone settings menu then to the security settings. Enable the Install from Unknown Sources option.
3. Use a file browser and navigate to your download folder. ...
4. The app should safely install.

For Step 1 just use your browser on your phone to google "parler APK download" and you will get many download sites. Choose one you like (I often use apkpure or apkmirror).

Once you have the file the rest of the instructions are fairly simply. I will include both a web link and a youtube video link.

https://www.nextpit.com/android-for-beginners-what-is-an-apk-file

 

Wonderful. We can all catch up on the planned action over the coming month

 

I have Parler on my iPhone. If Apple no longer provides it will my existing one stop working? Is there a work around for it? Does Parler have a go to internet web page we can go to and simply save a link to it to our home screen?

 

A person can stick their head into the toilet and watch the floaters go by and get the same information as what you'll see on Parler ... and you can
download to your heart's content. You're welcome.

 

I am afraid I am going to have to deter to an Apple user to answer your question. I boycotted Apple products more than a decade ago. There are probably ways to do it but probably much more difficult than Android. Worst case scenario is you would need to Jailbreak your phone.

 

I try to go to Parler on PC and get a 404 error.

 

Yep, that would be because their web hosting provider - Amazon Web Services - dropped them.

 

I'm told nothing to see here. These are just private companies.

 

You're told by who?

 

Most recently by some people on Facebook. They told me that as we're the ones arguing for private bakers to be able to deny making gay wedding cakes, we should not be upset with a private company banning people. I replied that you have monopolistic issues here as well as SS 230. They accused me of trying to avoid the issue by descending into legalese . Oy.

 

How were you "descending into legalese?"

 

Monopoly law is very complex I admit. Whole books are written about it and I brought it up and they're calling that dodging the issue. But I would think even a leftist would understand if a baker denies you, you can easily go another block down the street and have someone else do it. With Apple, Google, and Amazon pulling your app from their store, that is going to cause far more harm. The baker and the tech giants are not similar. But SS 230? One is arguing on the Internet and doesn't know what that is? The difference between a public forum and a publisher? At that point I figure I was arguing with people that were not responding in good faith.

 

So you're against an amendment to Section 230?

 

What amendment?

I think the real problem is that the tech giants that need this protection own their share of our government and are causing our government to fail to enforce what is already there. The protections should have been removed when they went from banning kiddie and violence porn pre-2016, to banning someone as innocuous as, say, Dave Cullen for engaging in wrong think.

 

Oh, so you want Section 230 to be REMOVED?

 

From those that violate it only. Heavy fines may suffice rather than removal.

Trump argued for its removal. He was wrong to do so as it would make forums, such as this one, impossible to host and the cost would be the loss of a valuable tool in our ability to communicate.

What Amendment?

 

How are companies violating it?

A change to this:

The popular opinion in conservative/Republican circles is to remove "or otherwise objectionable."
The problem is that these leftist social media companies find just about ANY mainstream conservative opinion to be "objectionable!"

 

What do you mean "their share of our government?"

 

so you want to ban Christian sites from banning others from their site that won't follow their TOS and want to trash their religion

sites set up their rules, you choose to use them and follow those rules or not

 

Removing "or otherwise objectionable" seems reasonable. I think companies should be fined and even have 230 protection removed when they fail to act like a public forum and act like a publisher.

An example of someone banned is Dave Cullen of "Computing Forever". The guy is practically Mr. Rogers. He just engages in "wrong think".

When I write that Big Tech own's their share of the politicians, I didn't want to write that they own them. Because the industrial military complex is still a thing. Feminism and Education own their share too.

 

I would remove section 230 protection from them. After that, they'd be free to act like a publisher, which, from your description, is what they really want to be, as opposed to a public forum.

 

do you mean sites that publish news articles and then offer comment sections below them

 

nope, cause then every rich guy could sue them for everything any of their posters posted, thus causing them to have to censor everything on the side of caution

they could not even let you post live, your post would have to wait in a queue until they could moderate it and approve it

it would be the end of free sites like this one for sure

 

That's the point. You don't get sued if you are a public forum, like this one. You ban a guy like Dave Cullen? Lose the protection as you are not a public forum.
Interesting point about comments made in what is a published forum like the New York Times. Even though a publisher, does the comment section get 230 protection? I do not know.

 

Yeah, absolutely. It doesn't get more relevant to Section 230 than comment sections. According to Ben Shapiro, comment sections are really what Section 230 was started over.