Since the launch of social media app, Clubhouse, last year, it’s been a huge thrill. Social media has been around long enough for everything to be old again, and unlike other apps that encourage users to share links or fragmentary thoughts in exchange for ‘likes’, Clubhouse facilitates voice conversations with your phone. Essentially, you can choose a topic and host your own panel discussion with friends. If you are lucky, you can join a conversation and share your thoughts with people like Elon Musk or any of the well known and influential users of the site.
I regret, however, that I inform you that a growing number of journalists are deeply concerned about the growing popularity of Clubhouse. Why? It looks like clubhouse will not accommodate their inner Big Brother.
In GritDaily, an online publication that considers itself “the best news source on Millennial and Gen Z brands – of fashion, technology, influencers, entrepreneurship and life”, author Olivia Smith focused on the new app in the late January story. Her primary complaint was that she had heard “an alarming amount of informal sexism”. However, readers should take her word for it, which was the point of her criticism – and in some ways the point of the app itself.
“At clubhouse,” Smith wrote“There are no screenshots. There is no way to pull up old clubhouse posts years later like a user can do on Twitter. There is no way to record conversations – that is, there is no way to prove that someone said something controversial. There is no path to accountability. Users in Clubhouse know, or at least believe, that they can openly express their opinion with no consequences. ”
Smith also claims that in a conversation she heard, “a moderator was spreading misinformation” about the COVID vaccine, and a female African doctor who was opposed to it was “bullied” about the to leave conversation.
This article followed a follow-up to the website of the Poynter Institute – the journalistic foundation launched by PolitiFact – by a prominent Poynter editor. In a headline on February 11, titled ‘A Fact-Checker Lands on Clubhouse’, Cristina Tardáguila, Poynter, approvingly quoted Olivia Smith’s concern about the lack of a written recording on Clubhouse and added one of her own. ‘The lack of these functions will surely create obstacles for fact-checkers. Not only will it be difficult to join which club, but Clubhouse also requires fact checkers to listen to hours and hours of conversations before choosing which claims to judge. ”
Those old enough to remember when unremarkable conversations about culture and politics were normal, let alone above the social media helmet we have today, this attitude is frightening. Increasingly, the “path to accountability” on social media consists of dismissing random people from their jobs and making national objects for a single awkward or misinterpretation of remark that may not be a lifelong behavior . Those who follow this path to social justice seem unaware of the coolest aspect of their behavior: they unconsciously follow the behavior of tyrants and totalitarian governments everywhere. Or, sometimes, to do it consciously: here’s the kicker of Cristina Tardáguila’s Poynter piece: “With the myriad of other platforms that fact checkers are forced to challenge, would it be best to ignore Clubhouse for now? … After a rare moment of cross-border dialogue between users from mainland China and others outside the country, Chinese censorship has set in. If the administration of Xi Jinping does not ignore Clubhouse, then why should fact checkers do so? Why should you? ”
New York Times technical reporter Taylor Lorenz has also put Clubhouse in her sights, with instructive results.
Earlier this month, Lorenz jumped on Twitter and accused legendary venture capitalist Marc Andreessen of using the word ‘delayed’ at Clubhouse in a positive way and lamenting that ‘no one else called him on it’. It turned out that Andreessen was not the speaker who used the word, and it was not a ‘slur’ as Lorenz claims. It originated with reference to a name given to themselves by the online community ‘Wall Street Bets’ (recently in the news for the stock market turmoil).
Once upon a time, such an irresponsible accusation would earn a reporter time in the penitentiary. Instead, Lorenz got the chance to co-author a piece from Times that is very critical of the app, noting that it “struggles with harassment, misinformation and privacy issues.” This may all be true – but how does Clubhouse differ from, for example, Facebook or Twitter, which both journalists like to use on a daily basis?
And it was journalists who led the charge to get the right-wing social media app that Parler deplatformed following the U.S. Capitol riot last month, although subsequent indictment documents and other evidence show that the vast majority of the planning for the revolt has been done on Facebook. . Perhaps one of the reasons why there was no serious move to worsen Facebook, is that Mark Zuckerberg’s crook generates a lot of revenue from publications that pay the salaries of our constantly sensual journalists. These are the kind of conflicts of interest that reporters once wanted to feel free in a more favorable economic environment.
On the contrary, it turns out that Clubhouse’s real problem is that it actually causes people to have conversations. The New York Times’ official Twitter account announced Lorenz’s story by noting that ‘unlimited conversations take place in Clubhouse, an app that is just invitations that allow people to congregate in soundrooms … despite concerns about harassment, misinformation and privacy.’ While the Times probably did not use ‘literally’ in a literal sense – after seeing journalists praise Xi Jinping’s approach to freedom of speech, it’s hard to see – it’s revealing to note that handcuffs are chains that used to make people escape.
If the medium is the message, Clubhouse tries to exert at least some humanity by promoting real dialogue between person and person. It must not be accepted that it is threatening. Yes, it’s true that spontaneous, unmanaged human interaction can have bad consequences – but in the same way, meaningful conversations are also powerful enough to change plan and touch hearts. Good luck with limiting Twitter to 280 characters.
Have journalists at places like Poynter and The New York Times considered how they can use their own platforms to bring people together, instead of trying to eradicate the wrong things, like a bunch of Orwellian truffles? To promote real engagement in a deeply politicized and polarized country, where we can all make more effort to see the humanity of those with whom we disagree?
Ultimately, it is easier to build consensus around true and unifying messages than to cut off every marginal vote that is wrong. The default message that an unsolicited conversation among reasonable people is a threat will only drive those who spread harmful ideas into dark, encrypted corners of the internet.
It’s best to stay skeptical about social media and all its forms, but what’s happening now in the still budding clubhouse is removing a low standard by being more promising than other social media platforms. Elon Musk recently asked Vladimir Putin to hold a conversation with him about the clubhouse, and the Kremlin says the request is being considered. There is always a chance that such a conversation will end badly, but if you are worried about hostilities on social media, World War III is much more likely to start on Twitter and be planned on Facebook.