This is going to be an important thread. We need to talk about YouTube, and private media operations in generalThis thread was prompted by YouTube’s shadow ban of my new video, but that’s really just a minor inconvenience. The whole story involves YouTube, the DHS, and the CIA— JT Chapman (@_SecondThought) November 28, 2020
An online community either has moderation, or it turns into /b/. If you are interested in building a community, you have to remove the people who are only interested in pissing in the pool. A lot of people have a knee-jerk reaction to bad moderation on Reddit and assume moderation itself is the problem.
Some people view the deterioration of Reddit as a technical problem. Something that can be fixed by the right cryptographic algorithms, or by the unmitigated entropy of the Internet. They think the solution lies in building a platform, not in building a community. These people go on to form platforms like voat, saiddit, ruqqus, etcetera, and what they end up with are shitholes. Dens of the bottomfeeding scum who aren't welcome anywhere that actually has standards.
Some people view the deterioration of Reddit as a social problem. That the interests of blood drinking silicon valley vampires and the interests of building a community are contradictory. Tildes is a good example of a website founded with this philosophy. The admin / developer's take is essentially, "if your website is full of assholes, you're an asshole, and growth for the sake of growth does not serve the needs of building a community."
Federated social media also takes the view that the deterioration of social media is a social phenomenon. That community independence is key to the long term health and development of online communities, while interoperability and diplomacy are essential to overcoming the network effect. Chuds get to have their spaces, but diplomacy doesn't often work in their favor.
I feel like the platforms like Voat et al. actually achieved their purpose, namely as platforms where the type of people who typically get banned on reddit/YT/Facebook/etc. gravitate. Most of them being chuds is a feature, not a bug.
While some of these websites (like Gab or Ruqqus) were designed from the get-go to be as vile as possible, I get the impression that a good number of these founders were naive libertarians who ended up biting off more than they could chew. People who thought "Reddit used to be good when there weren't as many rules."
While the operators of Voat don't seem to care very much about the shit on their site, I see the platform largely as a victim of circumstance. Gamergate spun out of hand, Reddit had to take action, and Voat popped up at the right time and place to absorb the refugees. The culture wasn't set by any explicit actions of the operators, but by inaction dictated by a naive understanding of the world.
This might be a charitable reading of events though.
While some of these websites (like Gab or Ruqqus) were designed from the get-go to be as vile as possible, I get the impression that a good number of these founders were naive libertarians who ended up biting off more than they could chew. People who thought “Reddit used to be good when there weren’t as many rules.”
Can't remember where I read this, but there's a quote that neatly sums it up along the lines of: If you start a community in the middle of nowhere, and your only rule is 'no witch burnings', you end up with two principled libertarians and fifty million witches.
An online community either has moderation, or it turns into /b/. If you are interested in building a community, you have to remove the people who are only interested in pissing in the pool. A lot of people have a knee-jerk reaction to bad moderation on Reddit and assume moderation itself is the problem.
Some people view the deterioration of Reddit as a technical problem. Something that can be fixed by the right cryptographic algorithms, or by the unmitigated entropy of the Internet. They think the solution lies in building a platform, not in building a community. These people go on to form platforms like voat, saiddit, ruqqus, etcetera, and what they end up with are shitholes. Dens of the bottomfeeding scum who aren't welcome anywhere that actually has standards.
Some people view the deterioration of Reddit as a social problem. That the interests of blood drinking silicon valley vampires and the interests of building a community are contradictory. Tildes is a good example of a website founded with this philosophy. The admin / developer's take is essentially, "if your website is full of assholes, you're an asshole, and growth for the sake of growth does not serve the needs of building a community."
Federated social media also takes the view that the deterioration of social media is a social phenomenon. That community independence is key to the long term health and development of online communities, while interoperability and diplomacy are essential to overcoming the network effect. Chuds get to have their spaces, but diplomacy doesn't often work in their favor.
I feel like the platforms like Voat et al. actually achieved their purpose, namely as platforms where the type of people who typically get banned on reddit/YT/Facebook/etc. gravitate. Most of them being chuds is a feature, not a bug.
While some of these websites (like Gab or Ruqqus) were designed from the get-go to be as vile as possible, I get the impression that a good number of these founders were naive libertarians who ended up biting off more than they could chew. People who thought "Reddit used to be good when there weren't as many rules."
While the operators of Voat don't seem to care very much about the shit on their site, I see the platform largely as a victim of circumstance. Gamergate spun out of hand, Reddit had to take action, and Voat popped up at the right time and place to absorb the refugees. The culture wasn't set by any explicit actions of the operators, but by inaction dictated by a naive understanding of the world.
This might be a charitable reading of events though.
Can't remember where I read this, but there's a quote that neatly sums it up along the lines of: If you start a community in the middle of nowhere, and your only rule is 'no witch burnings', you end up with two principled libertarians and fifty million witches.