3 ms·

MeWe has chronological feed order, and I've found fewer flame wars there. The user base is smaller and possibly more ideologically uniform, though, which may be

MeWe has chronological feed order, and I've found fewer flame wars there. The user base is smaller and possibly more ideologically uniform, though, which may be an alternate explanation.

Pxtl 5y ago
Yes, but small size seems to intrinsically produce nicer platforms. Even within the large platforms, you still get "stick to the small groups/subreddits/pages and folks are nice there". So there's no guarantee a structure that seems to encourage peace will actually work when scaled up.
ipaddr 5y ago
The big tent for everyone sites are toxic because people don't interact as closely in real life with people from different groups. We group for a reason. Within those groups common understanding on certain ideas is the connection. With that connection you let down your guard, you can be this side of yourself freely. In a big crowd you have to wear all faces to relate to everyone.
- badRNG 5y ago
  Anecdotally, I've seen far more polemic and vitriolic posts on so-called alt-tech social media sites compared to even Twitter and Facebook, which are horrendous in this regard. Sites like Gab, Voat, Ruqqus, etc seem to be filled with the absolute most toxic, angry, and hateful discourse imaginable. I've noticed sites that tend to be for something other than "just chatting" tend to do better: many hobby specific forums, HN, hobbyist subreddits, etc. all seem to do better discourse-wise when focused on something specific, but I'm not quite sure why that'd be the case.
  - RicoElectrico 5y ago
    Incidentally, most of the sites you mentioned were the "but mah free speech!1" equivalents of mainstream sites, created by the alt-right.
  - kmeisthax 5y ago
    Niche communities are easier for a small handful of volunteers or employees to moderate. There's simply less shit to clean up. Compare that to Facebook, Google, etc; all of whom have to hire armies of moderators who will burn out in a span of months. The attrition rate is very high, and there's just too many moderators to have consistent platform policy enforcement. Furthermore, if someone is just there to be toxic, you have an easy justification to shut them down: "I'm sorry, but this is an underwater basketweaving Discord, please stop spamming #offtopic with why you think we should call in the National Guard to fight the war on Christmas." Many small communities have very strict regulation of political speech purely because it causes most of their problems. Alt-tech is trying to collect all of the toxic bullshit in one place, so obviously they're going to be way more toxic despite their small size. It's also possible for niche communities to have their own toxicity problems, too. It's more that large communities are just inherently more difficult to govern.
  - ipaddr 5y ago
    The people going to those sites or TheDonald in it's heyday are bonding over being able to say things that cannot be said elsewhere. To those users none of the discourse is toxic. There are similiar left leaning sites where the anita hangout that have similiar discourse but no one finds it toxic. Combine those two groups and you have the most toxic place where everyone feels attacked, the need to attack and piling on a victim feels good. That could describe twitter or other public squares.
- soylentcola 5y ago
  It's the same old joke/complaint about the comment sections on other large, general audience sites (Youtube, news sites, etc.) The same old gag about "never read the comments section!" applies. Once a social platform goes from "chatting with maybe a hundred friends/family max" to "basically everyone", it becomes the "comment section" for the entire region (or even the internet at large).

MeWe has chronological feed order, and I've found fewer flame wars there. The user base is smaller and possibly more ideologically uniform, though, which may be an alternate explanation.

Pxtl 5y ago

Yes, but small size seems to intrinsically produce nicer platforms. Even within the large platforms, you still get "stick to the small groups/subreddits/pages and folks are nice there". So there's no guarantee a structure that seems to encourage peace will actually work when scaled up.

ipaddr 5y ago

The big tent for everyone sites are toxic because people don't interact as closely in real life with people from different groups. We group for a reason. Within those groups common understanding on certain ideas is the connection. With that connection you let down your guard, you can be this side of yourself freely. In a big crowd you have to wear all faces to relate to everyone.

badRNG 5y ago
Anecdotally, I've seen far more polemic and vitriolic posts on so-called alt-tech social media sites compared to even Twitter and Facebook, which are horrendous in this regard. Sites like Gab, Voat, Ruqqus, etc seem to be filled with the absolute most toxic, angry, and hateful discourse imaginable. I've noticed sites that tend to be for something other than "just chatting" tend to do better: many hobby specific forums, HN, hobbyist subreddits, etc. all seem to do better discourse-wise when focused on something specific, but I'm not quite sure why that'd be the case.
- RicoElectrico 5y ago
  Incidentally, most of the sites you mentioned were the "but mah free speech!1" equivalents of mainstream sites, created by the alt-right.
- kmeisthax 5y ago
  Niche communities are easier for a small handful of volunteers or employees to moderate. There's simply less shit to clean up. Compare that to Facebook, Google, etc; all of whom have to hire armies of moderators who will burn out in a span of months. The attrition rate is very high, and there's just too many moderators to have consistent platform policy enforcement. Furthermore, if someone is just there to be toxic, you have an easy justification to shut them down: "I'm sorry, but this is an underwater basketweaving Discord, please stop spamming #offtopic with why you think we should call in the National Guard to fight the war on Christmas." Many small communities have very strict regulation of political speech purely because it causes most of their problems. Alt-tech is trying to collect all of the toxic bullshit in one place, so obviously they're going to be way more toxic despite their small size. It's also possible for niche communities to have their own toxicity problems, too. It's more that large communities are just inherently more difficult to govern.
- ipaddr 5y ago
  The people going to those sites or TheDonald in it's heyday are bonding over being able to say things that cannot be said elsewhere. To those users none of the discourse is toxic. There are similiar left leaning sites where the anita hangout that have similiar discourse but no one finds it toxic. Combine those two groups and you have the most toxic place where everyone feels attacked, the need to attack and piling on a victim feels good. That could describe twitter or other public squares.
soylentcola 5y ago
It's the same old joke/complaint about the comment sections on other large, general audience sites (Youtube, news sites, etc.) The same old gag about "never read the comments section!" applies. Once a social platform goes from "chatting with maybe a hundred friends/family max" to "basically everyone", it becomes the "comment section" for the entire region (or even the internet at large).