قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Technology / The clubhouse speech was not recorded. This makes some reporters unhappy.

The clubhouse speech was not recorded. This makes some reporters unhappy.



Since its launch last year, Clubhouse, an invitation-only social media application club, has attracted widespread attention. Social media has been around for a long time, so that all old things are new again, and unlike other apps that encourage users to share links or scattered ideas to exchange “likes”, Clubhouse can use your phone for voice conversations. Essentially, you can choose a topic and host your own group discussion with friends. If you are lucky, you can join the conversation and share your thoughts with Elon Musk or many well-known and influential users on the site.

However, I regret to inform you that more and more reporters are deeply troubled by the increasing popularity of Clubhouse. why? The clubhouse seems unable to accommodate their inner big brother.

in dailyThe company̵

7;s online contributor Olivia Smith (Olivia Smith) targeted the new app in a story in late January. Her main complaint was that she heard “shocking random sexism”. However, readers must listen to her, this is the focus of her criticism, and to some extent the focus of the application itself.

“At the clubhouse,” Smith wrote“No screenshots. After a few years, there is no way to drag and drop old Clubhouse posts like users did on Twitter. Inability to record conversations-means there is no way to prove that someone said anything controversial. There is no way to hold accountability. Clubhouse Of users know or at least believe that they can publish their ideas publicly with zero impact.”

Smith also claimed that in a conversation, she heard that “the host is actively disseminating misinformation about the COVID vaccine” and that an opposing African female doctor was “bullyed” to withdraw from the conversation.

This article prompted a well-known Poynter editor of the Poynter Institute to follow up on its website. Poynter Institute is the press foundation that initiated PolitiFact. On February 11, in the project titled “Fact Checkers Landing at the Club”, Poynter’s Cristina Tardáguila praised Olivia Smith’s lack of written records on the club Worries, and added my own. “The lack of these features will definitely create obstacles for fact checkers. Not only is it difficult to choose which club to join, but Clubhouse also requires fact checkers to listen to a few hours of conversation before choosing which claims should be evaluated.”

For those who are old enough, they remember that when undocumented conversations about culture and politics are normal, let alone more ridiculous than our social media today, this attitude is unpleasant. Social media is increasingly becoming a “channel of accountability,” which includes allowing casual people to be fired and mocking their own national objects, because one of their outdated or misinterpreted remarks may not represent a lifetime behavior. Those who pursue the path of social justice seem to be unaware of the creepiest aspect of their behavior: they unconsciously imitate the behavior of tyrants and totalitarian regimes everywhere. Or, sometimes, do it consciously: this is Cristina Tardáguila (Cristina Tardáguila) Ponte: “As fact checkers on many other platforms are forced to contend with it, is it better for them to ignore Clubhouse now? … After a rare cross-border conversation between users in mainland China and users in other countries/regions, The Chinese examiner came in. If Xi Jinping’s government hadn’t ignored the Clubhouse, why did it conduct a fact check? Why did you do it?”

“The New York Times” technology reporter Taylor Lorenz (Taylor Lorenz) also attracted Clubhouse to her attention, and obtained beneficial results.

Earlier this month, Lorenz Hop on twitter He also accused the legendary venture capitalist Marc Andreessen of using the term “rearded” on Clubhouse in a derogatory way and complained that “no one else called him.” It turns out that Andreessen was not the speaker who used the word, and as Lorenz put it, it was not considered “slander.” It appeared based on the name given to it by the online community “Wall Street Bets” (recently in the stock market news).

Once upon a time, such irresponsible allegations would win reporting time in the penalty box. Instead, Lorenz had the opportunity to co-author The Times, highly critical of the app, noting that it “solves harassment, misinformation, and privacy issues.” All of this may be correct-but how does this make Clubhouse work with Facebook and Twitter? Such media are distinguished. For example, do journalists use these two companies happily every day?

After the U.S. Congress riots last month, the journalist-led right-wing social media application Parler was removed from the platform, although subsequent accusations and other evidence indicate that most of the plans for the uprising were completed on Facebook. Perhaps one reason why the Facebook platform movement has not been taken seriously is that the behemoth of Mark Zuckerberg paid the salaries of journalists we permanently censor for publications, thereby providing considerable income. These are conflicts of interest. In a more moderate economic environment, reporters have explored at will.

On the contrary, the real problem with the clubhouse seems to be that it allows people to have actual conversations. New York Times’ The official Twitter account has been announced Lorenz’s story states that “unrestricted conversations are taking place on Clubhouse, which is an invitation-only application that allows people to gather in audio chat rooms despite concerns about harassment, misinformation and privacy.” Although The New York Times is not literally using “unfettered”, but after seeing reporters praise Xi Jinping’s method of expressing freedom of speech, it is hard to say. This shows that bondage is a chain used to prevent people from escaping.

If the message is to be conveyed, then Clubhouse will at least try to take advantage of a certain degree of humanity by inciting actual human dialogue. That should not be considered threatening. Yes, spontaneous, unrestrained human interaction does have undesirable consequences, but likewise, meaningful conversations are powerful enough to change their minds and impress people. Good luck, Twitter must not exceed 280 characters.

Rather than trying to eliminate misconceptions like a bunch of Orwellian truffle pigs, why not consider how to use their platforms to bring people together? To promote genuine participation in a politicized and polarized country, in this country can we all put in more effort to see the humanity of those who we disagree?

Finally, it is much easier to reach a consensus around truthful, unified information than to spread every edge voice that may be wrong. The default message is that unsupervised dialogue between reasonable people is a threat and will only drive those who are spreading destructive ideas into the dark, encrypted corners of the Internet.

It’s best to maintain suspicion about social media and all its forms, but for now, what is happening in the nascent Clubhouse is to eliminate the low barriers to entry by being more promising than other social media platforms. Elon Musk recently asked Vladimir Putin to talk to him at the clubhouse, and the Kremlin said it was considering this request. Such conversations can always end in failure, but if you are worried about the hostility of social media, World War III is more likely to be initiated on Twitter and planned to be conducted on Facebook.

Mark Hemingway is a writer based in Alexandria, Virginia. You can follow him on Twitter @heminator.




Source link