8 ms·

When "free speech" is the primary selling point of a social media website, it tends to only attract people who feel slighted by the platform they're migrating f

by least 6y ago

When "free speech" is the primary selling point of a social media website, it tends to only attract people who feel slighted by the platform they're migrating from. Unfortunately this has the opposite effect of Parler's stated goal of being "the world's town square" since it simply isn't attractive to people with opposing views of those who did move. I think free speech is important and I think that social media platforms can be a bit overzealous in their moderation of the content of its users. I just don't think you can sell a platform on it alone. It should be a feature of your platform, not the only thing going for it.

shakezula 6y ago
They can claim that all they want but a quick glance at their sign up flow shows you that they’re really only interested in peddling extreme right wing personalities and associated accounts. And it can’t be a coincidence that “Gaming” with a capital G is the only topic that I saw suggested for me to follow.
redis_mlc 6y ago
> Unfortunately this has the opposite effect of Parler's stated goal of being "the world's town square" since it simply isn't attractive to people with opposing views of those who did move. What you're saying is irrelevant at this point. That ship sailed in late 2019. Leftists/Marxists will remain on Twitter and Youtube, and the right must move to alternate platforms like Parler. For example, MRAs mostly use YT to announce their alternative platform links now, since they can be yanked at any time by the SJW moderators working at YT.
cm2187 6y ago
Agree, we will likely end up with right leaning town square and left leaning town square. And because every company seems to think they need to pick a side on political topics, it may extend beyond speech platforms. For instance I wouldn't be surprised if at one point conservative leaning viewers would migrate away from the likes of netflix for been fed up of being preached woke catechism in every TV show. And perhaps calling your customers sexists and bigots isn't the best advertising strategy for shaving products. Etc.
- secondcoming 6y ago
  I really hope Netflix learns from the awfulness of Star Trek Discovery.
  - wolco2 6y ago
    Please explain. Netflix doesn't carry it in my country. Star Trek Discovery is awful for many reasons. How do they intersect?
  - learc83 6y ago
    Plenty of people love Star Trek Discovery. It’s successful enough that it’s already been renewed for a 4th season by CBS.
  - iso1210 6y ago
    Discovery had a ropey start with the secrecy in the first few episodes, but it really grew in S2, and S3 is awesome.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
      As a Star Trek fan and appreciator of well-written TV, I can't agree with this at all. The first season was hot garbage with maybe 3 watchable episodes, S2 was a little better but most of that was Pike. S3, despite finally being free of continuity baggage, is so far about as poorly written as S2.
- kall 6y ago
  Netflix consumption is 90% from recommendations page right? So they could segregate every side into their own little recommendation bubble, if they have the content range for it. Seems to work for youtube.
  - cm2187 6y ago
    That assumes that content from both sides of the political spectrum gets produced. Not my experience recently.
Gene_Parmesan 6y ago
It's a shame, but it really does feel like "free speech" has become a near dog-whistle. Almost any time I hear of a service billing itself with free speech as a primary selling point, a quick visit is more than enough to turn me off of ever returning. Besides this, there's a clear feedback loop that happens regardless of the intent of the service's creators. The people most likely to get kicked off of social media platforms nowadays seem to be far-right kooks. So when they are looking for a new platform, they'll go somewhere that advertises for no moderation. What happens next is pretty obvious; the more those sort of people migrate to the service, the more visible their content will be to any visitor. And that content tends to be pretty effective at driving away non-kooky users, which leads to a reinforcing cycle that, over time, turns you into yet another take on Voat.
- coldtea 6y ago
  >It's a shame, but it really does feel like "free speech" has become a near dog-whistle. Almost any time I hear of a service billing itself with free speech as a primary selling point, a quick visit is more than enough to turn me off of ever returning. That's because you're on the side of those doing the censoring. If it was the 80s and it was the conservatives doing the censoring, you'd say the opposite...
  - threeseed 6y ago
    You can be against censorship and also be against the type of racist, xenophobic, sexist etc content you find unchecked on places like Parler, Gab, 4chan.
    - bxk1 6y ago
      It's not that simple. Xenophobic content, for example, is "unchecked" on any U.S. owned platform, so is some racism, but not racism against black people specifically. At the same time in most other countries in the world racism, and especially racism against black people, isn't even a thing, but xenophobia is. So it's very unlikely for someone to truly sincerely be both against racist content and xenophobic content at the same time and even more unlikely to also sincerely be against censorship, then it's getting into very dystopian views territory, you can't hold such views without being exposed to massive amounts of propaganda.
Rick1 6y ago
From what I've heard (I don't use Parler) one of their selling points it actually that they're quicker than Twitter as censoring. Twitter allows (and promotes?) hate mobs while Parler supposedly doesn't.
- victorbstan 6y ago
  How does that work? Since most of the hate mobs are in Parler now?
  - wyoh 6y ago
    There's no hate mob in Parler, they're all conservatives, why would they hate each other.
    - indigo945 6y ago
      Because at this point, there is a sharp divide between conservatives who care about fiscal responsibility and family values, and "conservatives" who care about unmasking (((conspirators))) in pizza restaurants. Although to be fair, the platform will likely attract nothing but the latter.
      - spacemanmatt 6y ago
        Not sharp enough to say, vote for a better candidate
        Rick1 6y ago
        Given that both sides managed to provide senile old men I don't think anyone is in a position to point fingers.
        spacemanmatt 6y ago
        "both sides" eh?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
XorNot 6y ago
"free speech" of this type also doesn't really exist on the internet - because bots are a thing. You can't have a digital equivalent of a town square because whatever else you do, it's simply not possible to create in-person pseudo-anonymous supporters. But on the internet, this is easy - it's a damn service you can buy and it scales on the orders of 1-to-1000 or (usually much more) voices. CAPTCHA's don't solve it - because this is also a service - breaking CAPTCHA's by the hundred and supply account keys in bulk. You simply cannot have a digital space which works like a physical one, and as such you cannot meaningfully not moderate it because human participants cannot out-pace bots and sockpuppet accounts. Facebook's entire, unearned initial trust was because notionally it solved this problem - people forget it was initially limited to student's with student email addresses at school's it knew. It was very much, initially, exclusive enough that it kept something of a lid on this problem. The feeling about it has persisted far beyond the now non-existence of this mechanism.
- drilldrive 6y ago
  This is exactly why I believe a dutiful representation of the 1st amendment in the Internet includes anti-botting measures, since bots flood the town-hall with un-measured broadcasting, shuttering out any and all active speech. But beyond anti-botting and one or two other very minor holds, a public forum should have no other restrictions of moderation. There is an exact restriction needed for the moderation to itself not be speech-impacting either by too much or too little of it.
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    The problem you will run into is that the 1st amendment is a US thing and the internet is a global thing.
    - drilldrive 6y ago
      Well all the major internet firms are based in the United States, if they want to hold to foreign markets they would need to hold separate divisions in separate countries, or in coalition dealings. There is a reason USA law Section 203 debates (which doesn't address the core problem) are so contentious regarding Social Media.
SmokeyHamster 6y ago
>since it simply isn't attractive to people with opposing views of those who did move. I haven't seen a lot of evidence of this. If anything, it's the opposite. For example, David Pakman, Youtube political pundit and liberal grifter, joined Parler (I think just because Parler's CEO offered $20k to the first progressive with >50k twitter followers to signup) and he received very kind comments from people who largely dislike his politics. https://parler.com/profile/dpakman/posts https://parler.com/profile/dpakman/posts Naturally, despite the warm welcome, Pakman never used the site. Because like most leftists, he's not interested in freedom of speech or reaching out to new audiences. He knows who his audience is, which are fringe leftists who hate anything like Parler, so he knows he has nothing to gain by using it.
holler 6y ago
> It should be a feature of your platform, not the only thing going for it. edit: oops pasted wrong thing! Totally agree with this. It should be baked in, not the defining feature.

by least 6y ago

shakezula 6y ago

They can claim that all they want but a quick glance at their sign up flow shows you that they’re really only interested in peddling extreme right wing personalities and associated accounts. And it can’t be a coincidence that “Gaming” with a capital G is the only topic that I saw suggested for me to follow.

redis_mlc 6y ago

> Unfortunately this has the opposite effect of Parler's stated goal of being "the world's town square" since it simply isn't attractive to people with opposing views of those who did move. What you're saying is irrelevant at this point. That ship sailed in late 2019. Leftists/Marxists will remain on Twitter and Youtube, and the right must move to alternate platforms like Parler. For example, MRAs mostly use YT to announce their alternative platform links now, since they can be yanked at any time by the SJW moderators working at YT.

cm2187 6y ago

Agree, we will likely end up with right leaning town square and left leaning town square. And because every company seems to think they need to pick a side on political topics, it may extend beyond speech platforms. For instance I wouldn't be surprised if at one point conservative leaning viewers would migrate away from the likes of netflix for been fed up of being preached woke catechism in every TV show. And perhaps calling your customers sexists and bigots isn't the best advertising strategy for shaving products. Etc.

secondcoming 6y ago
I really hope Netflix learns from the awfulness of Star Trek Discovery.
- wolco2 6y ago
  Please explain. Netflix doesn't carry it in my country. Star Trek Discovery is awful for many reasons. How do they intersect?
- learc83 6y ago
  Plenty of people love Star Trek Discovery. It’s successful enough that it’s already been renewed for a 4th season by CBS.
- iso1210 6y ago
  Discovery had a ropey start with the secrecy in the first few episodes, but it really grew in S2, and S3 is awesome.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
    As a Star Trek fan and appreciator of well-written TV, I can't agree with this at all. The first season was hot garbage with maybe 3 watchable episodes, S2 was a little better but most of that was Pike. S3, despite finally being free of continuity baggage, is so far about as poorly written as S2.
kall 6y ago
Netflix consumption is 90% from recommendations page right? So they could segregate every side into their own little recommendation bubble, if they have the content range for it. Seems to work for youtube.
- cm2187 6y ago
  That assumes that content from both sides of the political spectrum gets produced. Not my experience recently.

Gene_Parmesan 6y ago

It's a shame, but it really does feel like "free speech" has become a near dog-whistle. Almost any time I hear of a service billing itself with free speech as a primary selling point, a quick visit is more than enough to turn me off of ever returning. Besides this, there's a clear feedback loop that happens regardless of the intent of the service's creators. The people most likely to get kicked off of social media platforms nowadays seem to be far-right kooks. So when they are looking for a new platform, they'll go somewhere that advertises for no moderation. What happens next is pretty obvious; the more those sort of people migrate to the service, the more visible their content will be to any visitor. And that content tends to be pretty effective at driving away non-kooky users, which leads to a reinforcing cycle that, over time, turns you into yet another take on Voat.

coldtea 6y ago
>It's a shame, but it really does feel like "free speech" has become a near dog-whistle. Almost any time I hear of a service billing itself with free speech as a primary selling point, a quick visit is more than enough to turn me off of ever returning. That's because you're on the side of those doing the censoring. If it was the 80s and it was the conservatives doing the censoring, you'd say the opposite...
- threeseed 6y ago
  You can be against censorship and also be against the type of racist, xenophobic, sexist etc content you find unchecked on places like Parler, Gab, 4chan.
  - bxk1 6y ago
    It's not that simple. Xenophobic content, for example, is "unchecked" on any U.S. owned platform, so is some racism, but not racism against black people specifically. At the same time in most other countries in the world racism, and especially racism against black people, isn't even a thing, but xenophobia is. So it's very unlikely for someone to truly sincerely be both against racist content and xenophobic content at the same time and even more unlikely to also sincerely be against censorship, then it's getting into very dystopian views territory, you can't hold such views without being exposed to massive amounts of propaganda.

Rick1 6y ago

From what I've heard (I don't use Parler) one of their selling points it actually that they're quicker than Twitter as censoring. Twitter allows (and promotes?) hate mobs while Parler supposedly doesn't.

victorbstan 6y ago
How does that work? Since most of the hate mobs are in Parler now?
- wyoh 6y ago
  There's no hate mob in Parler, they're all conservatives, why would they hate each other.
  - indigo945 6y ago
    Because at this point, there is a sharp divide between conservatives who care about fiscal responsibility and family values, and "conservatives" who care about unmasking (((conspirators))) in pizza restaurants. Although to be fair, the platform will likely attract nothing but the latter.
    - spacemanmatt 6y ago
      Not sharp enough to say, vote for a better candidate
      - Rick1 6y ago
        Given that both sides managed to provide senile old men I don't think anyone is in a position to point fingers.
        spacemanmatt 6y ago
        "both sides" eh?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

XorNot 6y ago

"free speech" of this type also doesn't really exist on the internet - because bots are a thing. You can't have a digital equivalent of a town square because whatever else you do, it's simply not possible to create in-person pseudo-anonymous supporters. But on the internet, this is easy - it's a damn service you can buy and it scales on the orders of 1-to-1000 or (usually much more) voices. CAPTCHA's don't solve it - because this is also a service - breaking CAPTCHA's by the hundred and supply account keys in bulk. You simply cannot have a digital space which works like a physical one, and as such you cannot meaningfully not moderate it because human participants cannot out-pace bots and sockpuppet accounts. Facebook's entire, unearned initial trust was because notionally it solved this problem - people forget it was initially limited to student's with student email addresses at school's it knew. It was very much, initially, exclusive enough that it kept something of a lid on this problem. The feeling about it has persisted far beyond the now non-existence of this mechanism.

drilldrive 6y ago
This is exactly why I believe a dutiful representation of the 1st amendment in the Internet includes anti-botting measures, since bots flood the town-hall with un-measured broadcasting, shuttering out any and all active speech. But beyond anti-botting and one or two other very minor holds, a public forum should have no other restrictions of moderation. There is an exact restriction needed for the moderation to itself not be speech-impacting either by too much or too little of it.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  The problem you will run into is that the 1st amendment is a US thing and the internet is a global thing.
  - drilldrive 6y ago
    Well all the major internet firms are based in the United States, if they want to hold to foreign markets they would need to hold separate divisions in separate countries, or in coalition dealings. There is a reason USA law Section 203 debates (which doesn't address the core problem) are so contentious regarding Social Media.

SmokeyHamster 6y ago

>since it simply isn't attractive to people with opposing views of those who did move. I haven't seen a lot of evidence of this. If anything, it's the opposite. For example, David Pakman, Youtube political pundit and liberal grifter, joined Parler (I think just because Parler's CEO offered $20k to the first progressive with >50k twitter followers to signup) and he received very kind comments from people who largely dislike his politics. https://parler.com/profile/dpakman/posts https://parler.com/profile/dpakman/posts Naturally, despite the warm welcome, Pakman never used the site. Because like most leftists, he's not interested in freedom of speech or reaching out to new audiences. He knows who his audience is, which are fringe leftists who hate anything like Parler, so he knows he has nothing to gain by using it.

holler 6y ago

> It should be a feature of your platform, not the only thing going for it. edit: oops pasted wrong thing! Totally agree with this. It should be baked in, not the defining feature.