4 ms·

You need to understand that the majority of people simply don't agree with you. They choose platforms with moderation (aka censorship) and stay away from those

You need to understand that the majority of people simply don't agree with you. They choose platforms with moderation (aka censorship) and stay away from those that don't.

flextheruler 3y ago
In the beginning YouTube was popular and had very little moderation. You could watch illegal streams of many films and movies and you could find some porn before it’d be taken down. Advertisers are what demand moderation not users so as to protect their bottom line. It’s disingenuous to say otherwise and ignores a multitude of services that became and still are incredible popular with little moderation.
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  'Them that has the gold makes the rules'. The users are not the paying customers.
- threeseed 3y ago
  > ignores a multitude of services that became and still are incredible popular with little moderation Please provide examples. So we can compare them to the likes of Meta, Netflix, Spotify, Apple, Reddit etc.
- GenericPoster 3y ago
  >YouTube was popular and had very little moderation. Emphasis on the AND. There is some correlation between Youtube's popularity and the lack of moderation but that isn't what made them popular. I do agree on the advertiser's demanding moderation and I honestly don't blame them. If I made a product and I'm paying good money for advertising. I wouldn't want my products to be even remotely associated with anything that might promote controversy AND lower sales. Emphasis on the AND. The companies job is to make money and if that means embracing censorship or decrying it then they'll do it. Hell, they'll even do both at the same time. Advertisers are a leech on society and I hate that I'm defending them. But they pay the bills so.... That doesn't mean that vast majority of users don't want moderation. Every "free-speech" alternative to an already existing platform that I've visited has been complete shit. Filled with nutjobs that couldn't play nice with the normal folk.
  - somenameforme 3y ago
    You're making the exact same logical fallacy you're pointing out. The reason free speech alternatives tend to be filled with less than desirable types is precisely because they're alternatives. Who are you going to disproportionately attract as early adopters? It's the same reason anti-Musk driven alternatives to Twitter are also failing. Instead of having a normal sampling of society, you end up with a hardcore bias which is offputting to most of everybody except those of that bias. I also think Threads is perhaps a reasonable challenge to the idea that society wants moderation. Unlike the anti-Musk Twitter alternatives it started with a massive and mixed userbase and was a completely viable alternative, yet it almost immediately collapsed. It's really hard to see why without looking to the fact that were also featuring the sort of "moderation" that historically only comes as a bait-and-switch after a platform is extremely well established.
    - threeseed 3y ago
      No idea what you are talking about with Threads. The reason people stopped using it was because after the initial install they realised it was missing basic features like a web app, search, chronological feed etc. Those have now been added and reports from popular users is that engagement across the board is increasing again. Far from collapsing and well on its way to being a true Twitter alternative.
      - somenameforme 3y ago
        Multiple third party reports [1] are showing the site has lost ~80% of daily active users and of the < 10 million daily active users left, time spent in the app has decreased from nearly 20 minutes, to less than 3. I'm left to reference third party sites since Meta stopped reporting their numbers officially when it started cratering. That scale of collapse is unlikely to be due to the lack of effective search or a chronological feed. [1] - https://gizmodo.com/threads-has-lost-more-than-80-of-daily-active-users-1850707329 https://gizmodo.com/threads-has-lost-more-than-80-of-daily-a...
  - MockObject 3y ago
    This "association" business smells like a logical fallacy to me. Since when has advertisement even implied endorsement of nearby content? If I see a billboard on a bus station, what is the advertiser endorsing here? What about a magazine ad? Reasonable people assume the advertiser supports every view expressed therein? If I happened to see an ad on a website with user generated content, would I really think the advertiser endorsed each post? Sorry, this argument is fallacious. Reasonable people do not make these conclusions.
MockObject 3y ago
This seems like a generalization with as many counterexamples as examples. Also, users don't actually want censorship, they want a tailored experience that filters out whatever content they don't like.
globular-toast 3y ago
People like curation, not censorship. Big difference.
- threeseed 3y ago
  Except that curation is censorship.

You need to understand that the majority of people simply don't agree with you. They choose platforms with moderation (aka censorship) and stay away from those that don't.

flextheruler 3y ago

In the beginning YouTube was popular and had very little moderation. You could watch illegal streams of many films and movies and you could find some porn before it’d be taken down. Advertisers are what demand moderation not users so as to protect their bottom line. It’s disingenuous to say otherwise and ignores a multitude of services that became and still are incredible popular with little moderation.

anigbrowl 3y ago
'Them that has the gold makes the rules'. The users are not the paying customers.
threeseed 3y ago
> ignores a multitude of services that became and still are incredible popular with little moderation Please provide examples. So we can compare them to the likes of Meta, Netflix, Spotify, Apple, Reddit etc.
GenericPoster 3y ago
>YouTube was popular and had very little moderation. Emphasis on the AND. There is some correlation between Youtube's popularity and the lack of moderation but that isn't what made them popular. I do agree on the advertiser's demanding moderation and I honestly don't blame them. If I made a product and I'm paying good money for advertising. I wouldn't want my products to be even remotely associated with anything that might promote controversy AND lower sales. Emphasis on the AND. The companies job is to make money and if that means embracing censorship or decrying it then they'll do it. Hell, they'll even do both at the same time. Advertisers are a leech on society and I hate that I'm defending them. But they pay the bills so.... That doesn't mean that vast majority of users don't want moderation. Every "free-speech" alternative to an already existing platform that I've visited has been complete shit. Filled with nutjobs that couldn't play nice with the normal folk.
- somenameforme 3y ago
  You're making the exact same logical fallacy you're pointing out. The reason free speech alternatives tend to be filled with less than desirable types is precisely because they're alternatives. Who are you going to disproportionately attract as early adopters? It's the same reason anti-Musk driven alternatives to Twitter are also failing. Instead of having a normal sampling of society, you end up with a hardcore bias which is offputting to most of everybody except those of that bias. I also think Threads is perhaps a reasonable challenge to the idea that society wants moderation. Unlike the anti-Musk Twitter alternatives it started with a massive and mixed userbase and was a completely viable alternative, yet it almost immediately collapsed. It's really hard to see why without looking to the fact that were also featuring the sort of "moderation" that historically only comes as a bait-and-switch after a platform is extremely well established.
  - threeseed 3y ago
    No idea what you are talking about with Threads. The reason people stopped using it was because after the initial install they realised it was missing basic features like a web app, search, chronological feed etc. Those have now been added and reports from popular users is that engagement across the board is increasing again. Far from collapsing and well on its way to being a true Twitter alternative.
    - somenameforme 3y ago
      Multiple third party reports [1] are showing the site has lost ~80% of daily active users and of the < 10 million daily active users left, time spent in the app has decreased from nearly 20 minutes, to less than 3. I'm left to reference third party sites since Meta stopped reporting their numbers officially when it started cratering. That scale of collapse is unlikely to be due to the lack of effective search or a chronological feed. [1] - https://gizmodo.com/threads-has-lost-more-than-80-of-daily-active-users-1850707329 https://gizmodo.com/threads-has-lost-more-than-80-of-daily-a...
- MockObject 3y ago
  This "association" business smells like a logical fallacy to me. Since when has advertisement even implied endorsement of nearby content? If I see a billboard on a bus station, what is the advertiser endorsing here? What about a magazine ad? Reasonable people assume the advertiser supports every view expressed therein? If I happened to see an ad on a website with user generated content, would I really think the advertiser endorsed each post? Sorry, this argument is fallacious. Reasonable people do not make these conclusions.

MockObject 3y ago

This seems like a generalization with as many counterexamples as examples. Also, users don't actually want censorship, they want a tailored experience that filters out whatever content they don't like.

globular-toast 3y ago

People like curation, not censorship. Big difference.

threeseed 3y ago
Except that curation is censorship.