• QuentinCallaghanOP
    link
    43 years ago

    Now there’s a term for platforms that turn into Nazi and far-right echo chambers, “Voatification”. It’s really useful for describing a common phenomenon. Funny also how Parler’s founder intended to create the platform for everyone, not just Pro-Trump people but now it’s just full of them.

    Parler seems dubious for several reasons:

    • in order to send private messages, get a verified badge or respond with images or links, you have to send a picture of your ID
    • messages can be removed or users can be banned for any reason at all - even if the users are following the rules
    • users are asked to step in and volunteer as unpaid moderators for filtering spam
    • there are no blue checkmarks like in Twitter but “Verified influencers” who are promoted even more and whose content is promoted in the platform’s “Discover” section

    And these rules, doesn’t look like absolute freedom of speech for those who want it.

    • @Octorine
      link
      53 years ago

      Avoiding Voatification is really hard. The problem is that whatever platform you’re providing an alternative to is still there, and if the only difference between you and them is censorship, then all the non-extremists will stay on the big site, because that’s where their friends are, and you just get left with the dregs.

      The only think I can think of that might work is to have another major selling point besides the laissez-faire stuff, like an emphasis on security, or no/limited advertising, or better UI. Even then, it would be an uphill battle.

      It’s too bad, because I think having some sort of “let all voices be heard” type of platform could be a good thing, assuming you can get some sensible people to use it.

    • riccardo
      link
      4
      edit-2
      3 years ago

      users are asked to step in and volunteer as unpaid moderators for filtering spam

      This is interesting. Have you had a chance to look at how it works? I’ve seen people saying that moderation is in fact done by volunteers who vote on reported content (if 4 people out of 5 decide the content is not legit, it is removed or hidden), but I’m curious about how it works: what do these people get to vote on? Can they vote on any post, or they have some kind of queue of reports to review? How are these people chosen? Do you get, like, a request from Parler to help them out with moderation or is it based on some sort of karma score? Or maybe they just voluntarily apply? Or maybe it’s just contextual and when a post gets marked as reported, the first 5 people to vote will decide its faith?