3 ms·

Voat is too extreme to ever challenge Reddit. I think it's a given that we'll see a new wave of social media companies that put "moderation/censorship" first. M

Voat is too extreme to ever challenge Reddit. I think it's a given that we'll see a new wave of social media companies that put "moderation/censorship" first. Many users won't like that. If anything, what remains of Reddit will be better positioned to become the new Voat, and cater to people who don't want strict moderation. But since Reddit has been taking baby steps away from that for the past couple years, it would be an awkward reversal.

ggm 8y ago
I've been to more than a few meetings about the future of discourse online, and where I used to believe anonymity was ascendant, I now think identified use is on the up. It makes for better dialogue. I fully understand some people need anonymity and pseudonimity. But the general case, very quickly goes to a descent to the bottom.
- skummetmaelk 8y ago
  Spending some time on Facebook makes it abundantly clear that identified use does not prevent people from acting like horribly.
  - ggm 8y ago
    Curation helps. George Megalogenis (newspaper man) used to say "my blog, my rules" and fearlessly cut stuff he didn't think had any merit. But I take your point. It is no guarantee of success, just to require people to be identified.
    - justtopost 8y ago
      To further that point, many open discussions of sensitive issues are not going to to be 'figured out' publicly, under a real name, where my family reads. Anonyminity is powerful for open discussions without taboo that will have repurcussions elsewhere. Facebook et al are possibly the worst forum for hard discussion.
- pathseeker 8y ago
  > I now think identified use is on the up. It makes for better dialogue. I haven't seen this at all. It oppresses ideas from surfacing that are currently seen as unpopular by whatever vitriolic group, which leads to a large misrepresentation in the public discourse because the only ones supporting it usually have "nothing to lose". Identified use is great if you don't want any controversial discourse and just need a quick way to verify identity (reduce spam, coordinate local events, etc). Otherwise it's just a recipe for reflecting popular opinion given the online community's proclivity for reaching for pitchforks.
- Bartweiss 8y ago
  > I fully understand some people need anonymity and pseudonimity. But the general case I think we often underestimate the need to have these spaces active and available just to leave room for such people. If /b/ is where people post bizarre anonymous trash, and Facebook is where people have serious conversations about serious issues, what do the people who need anonymity do? Go on Facebook and tell their families "hey, you should go have some of this discussion in those weird anonymous forums you've heard are full of evil people, no reason, nothing to do with me having a trait you'd hate me for"? I don't mean to be snarky, this is a genuinely hard problem. But "people who need anonymity" are by definition a group you can't wait to accommodate when they speak up and ask for it. Facebook's real name policies regularly cause problems for everyone from American trans people to Bangladeshi atheists, and go far beyond that in silencing discussion on topics where a totally conventional opinion might offend an employer or family member. (Or perhaps Customs and Border Patrol, which can't prove how many Reddit accounts someone has but apparently challenges claims of not having a Facebook profile.) I don't think anonymity has to be a descent to the bottom. Comparing different subreddits, or HN to 4chan, or any other pair of anonymous sites, demonstrates that. I do think anonymity and the need for moderation tend to trade against one another; anonymous fora without oversight quickly become toxic, or are simply eaten by spammers. But I'm very concerned that real name policies look good because anonymity causes highly visible bad behavior, while identity silently pushes vulnerable people out of the discussion.

ggm 8y ago

I've been to more than a few meetings about the future of discourse online, and where I used to believe anonymity was ascendant, I now think identified use is on the up. It makes for better dialogue. I fully understand some people need anonymity and pseudonimity. But the general case, very quickly goes to a descent to the bottom.

skummetmaelk 8y ago
Spending some time on Facebook makes it abundantly clear that identified use does not prevent people from acting like horribly.
- ggm 8y ago
  Curation helps. George Megalogenis (newspaper man) used to say "my blog, my rules" and fearlessly cut stuff he didn't think had any merit. But I take your point. It is no guarantee of success, just to require people to be identified.
  - justtopost 8y ago
    To further that point, many open discussions of sensitive issues are not going to to be 'figured out' publicly, under a real name, where my family reads. Anonyminity is powerful for open discussions without taboo that will have repurcussions elsewhere. Facebook et al are possibly the worst forum for hard discussion.
pathseeker 8y ago
> I now think identified use is on the up. It makes for better dialogue. I haven't seen this at all. It oppresses ideas from surfacing that are currently seen as unpopular by whatever vitriolic group, which leads to a large misrepresentation in the public discourse because the only ones supporting it usually have "nothing to lose". Identified use is great if you don't want any controversial discourse and just need a quick way to verify identity (reduce spam, coordinate local events, etc). Otherwise it's just a recipe for reflecting popular opinion given the online community's proclivity for reaching for pitchforks.
Bartweiss 8y ago
> I fully understand some people need anonymity and pseudonimity. But the general case I think we often underestimate the need to have these spaces active and available just to leave room for such people. If /b/ is where people post bizarre anonymous trash, and Facebook is where people have serious conversations about serious issues, what do the people who need anonymity do? Go on Facebook and tell their families "hey, you should go have some of this discussion in those weird anonymous forums you've heard are full of evil people, no reason, nothing to do with me having a trait you'd hate me for"? I don't mean to be snarky, this is a genuinely hard problem. But "people who need anonymity" are by definition a group you can't wait to accommodate when they speak up and ask for it. Facebook's real name policies regularly cause problems for everyone from American trans people to Bangladeshi atheists, and go far beyond that in silencing discussion on topics where a totally conventional opinion might offend an employer or family member. (Or perhaps Customs and Border Patrol, which can't prove how many Reddit accounts someone has but apparently challenges claims of not having a Facebook profile.) I don't think anonymity has to be a descent to the bottom. Comparing different subreddits, or HN to 4chan, or any other pair of anonymous sites, demonstrates that. I do think anonymity and the need for moderation tend to trade against one another; anonymous fora without oversight quickly become toxic, or are simply eaten by spammers. But I'm very concerned that real name policies look good because anonymity causes highly visible bad behavior, while identity silently pushes vulnerable people out of the discussion.