4 ms·

As the other commenter said, I think most people would call those more messaging apps than social media (though wechat blurs the line even further being a sort

As the other commenter said, I think most people would call those more messaging apps than social media (though wechat blurs the line even further being a sort of everything app but I digress). That said it's also worth considering that few users of any of these products use only one; therefore, the network effects of say, Facebook steering people into more extreme content, will reflect back when they join more extreme Telegram channels, with it being at least decently plausible that further interaction on Telegram will steer them into yet further Facebook Groups or into the influence of content creators elsewhere still. Enough of these utilities engage in this attention-grabbing funnel tactic that the effects of their algorithms far exceed the boundaries of their own products, and reinforce each other as well.

em-bee 3y ago
network effects of say, Facebook steering people into more extreme content, will reflect back when they join more extreme Telegram channels, with it being at least decently plausible that further interaction on Telegram will steer them into yet further Facebook Groups or into the influence of content creators elsewhere still. the distinction is where the steering comes from. on facebook the steering is affected by the algorithm, which decided what messages you see, while on telegram it is not. on facebook, twitter, youtube etc, i can be confronted with extreme content that i didn't ask for. on telegram, whatsapp, wechat, etc, i only get content that i explicitly asked for.
- ToucanLoucan 3y ago
  Oh yeah, 100% agree and they're much less toxic for it. But messaging apps like telegram because of the lack of reach of their groups, also makes them more difficult to moderate which is worth noting too. The people who believe whatever extremism is on offer are not likely to report those channels, and even if they were, Telegram could just remove the reporting user, say "we'll take care of it" and do nothing because the likelihood of followup is basically nil.
  - em-bee 3y ago
    why would groups have to be moderated from the outside? if their content is not public because you can't find it unless you explicitly join the group does it matter if the conversation is happening on telegram or in a room somewhere in the city or in a private forum somewhere else?
    - ToucanLoucan 3y ago
      I mean, yes? A non-exhaustive list of things found to be happening in private telegram channels we probably want to stop would include: coordination of harassment campaigns, a plot to kidnap a sitting United States governor, a large part of the January 6th event in the United States, a shit ton of hate speech, doxxing, confidence scams, distribution of material to facilitate genocide...
      - em-bee 3y ago
        that's not moderation. that is surveillance. we can argue how much surveillance is acceptable or necessary. but that is a different topic. the purpose of moderation is to avoid discussions being sidetracked by extreme messages or bad faith replies or other noise, so we can focus on the topic at hand. but whatever happens in these groups does not affect the discussion in the groups i am joining, so their moderation is quite irrelevant to me and provides me no benefit. this is different on public forums like hackernews where i can access all content and expect to have a civil discussion everywhere. hence moderation here is necessary and welcome. but if telegram were to come in and try to police speech in my private group then i'd be very upset and look for a different service with more privacy. what you are effectively advocating for is that such private groups should not be allowed to exist because there is no way to control what is being shared in those groups. yes, we want to stop these things, but blaming the tools for allowing them to happen is the wrong approach. either we allow private conversations or we don't. if we don't, then noone can have private conversations anywhere. that is not something you should want.

em-bee 3y ago

network effects of say, Facebook steering people into more extreme content, will reflect back when they join more extreme Telegram channels, with it being at least decently plausible that further interaction on Telegram will steer them into yet further Facebook Groups or into the influence of content creators elsewhere still. the distinction is where the steering comes from. on facebook the steering is affected by the algorithm, which decided what messages you see, while on telegram it is not. on facebook, twitter, youtube etc, i can be confronted with extreme content that i didn't ask for. on telegram, whatsapp, wechat, etc, i only get content that i explicitly asked for.

ToucanLoucan 3y ago
Oh yeah, 100% agree and they're much less toxic for it. But messaging apps like telegram because of the lack of reach of their groups, also makes them more difficult to moderate which is worth noting too. The people who believe whatever extremism is on offer are not likely to report those channels, and even if they were, Telegram could just remove the reporting user, say "we'll take care of it" and do nothing because the likelihood of followup is basically nil.
- em-bee 3y ago
  why would groups have to be moderated from the outside? if their content is not public because you can't find it unless you explicitly join the group does it matter if the conversation is happening on telegram or in a room somewhere in the city or in a private forum somewhere else?
  - ToucanLoucan 3y ago
    I mean, yes? A non-exhaustive list of things found to be happening in private telegram channels we probably want to stop would include: coordination of harassment campaigns, a plot to kidnap a sitting United States governor, a large part of the January 6th event in the United States, a shit ton of hate speech, doxxing, confidence scams, distribution of material to facilitate genocide...
    - em-bee 3y ago
      that's not moderation. that is surveillance. we can argue how much surveillance is acceptable or necessary. but that is a different topic. the purpose of moderation is to avoid discussions being sidetracked by extreme messages or bad faith replies or other noise, so we can focus on the topic at hand. but whatever happens in these groups does not affect the discussion in the groups i am joining, so their moderation is quite irrelevant to me and provides me no benefit. this is different on public forums like hackernews where i can access all content and expect to have a civil discussion everywhere. hence moderation here is necessary and welcome. but if telegram were to come in and try to police speech in my private group then i'd be very upset and look for a different service with more privacy. what you are effectively advocating for is that such private groups should not be allowed to exist because there is no way to control what is being shared in those groups. yes, we want to stop these things, but blaming the tools for allowing them to happen is the wrong approach. either we allow private conversations or we don't. if we don't, then noone can have private conversations anywhere. that is not something you should want.