Can Parler Survive Without "Snowflake Liberals?"

When Ted Cruz took to his Twitter account to lament the role of social media companies in shaping the news agenda, he also slipped in a few plugs for Parler.

Parler, pronounced “par-lay,” has marketed itself as a “free-speech social network” which is focused on “open dialogue and user engagement”.

The basic user experience is similar to Twitter, but instead of tweets you post “parleys” and rather than re-tweeting someone you “echo” them.

It has seen a raft of high profile, mainly conservative commentators and politicians sign up, including Cruz, Candance Owens and Laura Loomer.

In June 2020, Cruz proudly exclaimed that he was joining Parler, the app which “gets what free speech is all about” and that he wants to “end silicon valley censorship”.

It’s worth noting that Cruz is still on Twitter and uses the platform, regularly.

The senator for Texas also mentioned Twitter was flagging some of President Trump’s tweets as being “misleading,” causing an apparent increase in Parler’s users.

Parler CEO John Matze claims the UK market spiked after controversial commentator Katie Hopkins was banned from Twitter.

But, can Parler survive without “snowflake liberals?” Is the attention gained from tweets which people know will cause outrage among the “other side” possible on Parler?

And, will it hold users attention when instead of being notorious, they’re merely another like-minded user engaging with people who have the same views?

Social media platforms have developed over time, and have taken a page from the gambling playbook to keep users hooked.

Natasha Shüll authored “Addicted by Design” and explains how companies lock users into a cycle of addiction.

Speaking to The Guardian in 2018, she said: “Facebook, Twitter and other companies use methods similar to the gambling industry to keep users on their sites.

“In the online economy, revenue is a function of continuous consumer attention — which is measured in clicks and time spent.”

We’re drawn into, what Shüll describes as, “ludic loops,” or cycles of uncertainty which keep us coming back for more engagements.

“If you disengage, you get peppered with little messages or bonus offers to get your attention and pull you back in,” she explains.

We’ve all heard the phrases “Facebook drama” or “Twitter feud” and probably asked why people are getting involved in these, usually, petty arguments. Why “bite” and not just ignore the post and sign-out? Why even go to the effort of creating the post?

In his 2014 article for Psychology Today, Billi Gordan PhD explains the nature of attention-seeking behaviour, why people choose to revel in the type of drama we see on social media every day, and it starts early.

“Newborns are extremely dependent on getting their mother’s attention for survival. The more their needs are neglected during early development, the more the child equates getting attention with survival and safety.”

So, people who enjoy attention, be it positive or negative, have developed the need throughout their lives and come to depend on it for emotional survival.

Gordon continues, “Drama gets attention; however, it is more than that. Drama causes the pituitary gland and hypothalamus to secrete endorphins, which are the pain-suppressing and pleasure-inducing compounds.”

People who create drama do so because they get a rush of endorphins, endorphins are often spoken about with relation to exercise, or certain drugs. The surge makes people feel better, and this is what people who crave attention feel when those likes, re-tweets and comments come flooding in.

If controversy causes drama, and drama is being used as a drug to make someone feel good, can a platform that doesn’t provide that drama survive without the very people it is hoping to get away from? The psychologysuggests not.