Since its introduction last year, the social networking application Clubhouse, which has only invitation, has gathered a lot of buzz. Social networks have been around long enough that everything is old again, and unlike other apps that encourage users to share links or fragmented thoughts in exchange for “likes,” Clubhouse makes your voice conversations easier using your phone. In essence, you can choose a topic and host your own discussion with friends. If you are lucky, you will be able to join a conversation and share your thoughts with Elon Musk or any number of famous and influential users of the site.
However, I regret to inform you that a growing number of journalists are deeply disturbed by the growing popularity of the Clubhouse. Why? Looks like Clubhouse won’t be hosting its big brother inside.
In the GritDaily, an online publication considered to be “the top news source for the Millennial and Gen Z brands – from fashion, technology, influencers, entrepreneurship and life”, staff writer Olivia Smith targeted the new application in a story from the end of the month January. Her main complaint was that she heard “an alarming amount of casual sexism.” Readers must believe their word for this, however, which was the point of her critique – and the point, in some respects, of the application itself.
“The Clubhouse” Smith wrote, “There are no screenshots. There is no way to hide old Clubhouse posts years later, as a Twitter user might do. There is no way to record conversations – that is, there is no way to prove that someone said something controversial. There is no way to responsibility. Clubhouse users know or at least think they can openly express their minds without repercussions. ”
Smith also said that in a conversation he heard, “a moderator was actively spreading misinformation” about the COVID vaccine and an African woman who objected was “intimidated” to leave the conversation.
This article led to a follow-up on the website of the Poynter Institute – the journalism foundation that launched PolitiFact – from a prominent Poynter publisher. In a Feb. 11 article, A Fact-Checker Lands on Clubhouse, Cristina Tardáguila of Poynter aptly cited Olivia Smith’s concerns about the lack of a written record at the Clubhouse and added one of her own. “The lack of these characteristics will certainly produce barriers to verifying the facts. Not only will it be difficult to choose which club to join, but Clubhouse also requires auditors to listen to hours and hours of conversation before selecting which claims should be evaluated. ”
For those old enough to remember when unrecorded conversations about culture and politics were normal, let alone the infernal landscapes on the social networks we have today, this attitude is annoying. Increasingly, the “path to responsibility” of social networks is the random elimination of people from the workplace and the transformation into national objects of contempt for a single misinterpreted or misinterpreted remark, which may not be representative of a life of behavior. Those who pursue this path to social justice do not seem to pay attention to the most terrible aspect of their behavior: they unconsciously imitate the behavior of tyrants and totalitarian regimes everywhere. Or, sometimes, doing this consciously: Here is Cristina Tardáguila’s kicker Poynter piece: “With the multitude of other platforms, verifiers are actually forced to fight, would it be best for them to ignore Clubhouse for now? … After a rare moment of cross-border dialogue between users in mainland China and others outside the country, Chinese censors have moved. If Xi Jinping’s administration does not ignore Clubhouse, why should the verifiers actually? Why should you? “
New York Times technical reporter Taylor Lorenz 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 “retarded” on Clubhouse in a pejorative way and complained that “no one else called him.” As it turned out, Andreessen was not the speaker who used that word and was not used as an “ambiguity,” as Lorenz claimed. He appeared in reference to a name he gave to the online community “Wall Street Betting” (recently in the news for the roiling market).
Once upon a time, such an irresponsible accusation earned a reporter time in the penalty box. Instead, Lorenz was given the chance to co-author a piece in the Times that was extremely critical of the app, noting that he was “facing harassment, misinformation and privacy issues.” All of this may be true – but how does Clubhouse differ from, say, Facebook or Twitter, which both journalists happily use on a daily basis?
And journalists were the ones who led the charge of getting the right Parler social media app disapproved of after the US Chapter riot last month, even though subsequent tax documents and other evidence show that the vast majority of insurrection planning was done on Facebook. Perhaps one of the reasons there was no serious move to unbalance Facebook is that Mark Zuckerberg’s monster provides much of the revenue from publications that pay the salaries of our permanently censored journalists. These are the kinds of conflicts of interest that reporters in a more benign economic environment once felt free to explore.
Instead, it seems that the real problem of the Clubhouse is that it allows people to have real conversations. New York Times announced an official Twitter account Lorenz’s story states that “unfettered conversations take place at the Clubhouse, an invitation-only app that allows people to gather in audio chat rooms … despite issues of harassment, misinformation and privacy.” Although the Times probably did not use “unrestricted” in a literal sense – after seeing journalists praising Xi Jinping’s approach to freedom of expression, it is difficult to say – it is revealing to note that links are chains used to prevent people to escape.
If the environment is the message, Clubhouse is at least trying to capitalize on a certain measure of humanity by promoting real person-to-person dialogue. We should not assume that it is a threat. Yes, it is true that spontaneous, unchanged human interaction can have bad results – but in the same way, meaningful conversations are also strong enough to change the mind and touch the hearts. Good luck doing this with the 280 character limit on Twitter.
Instead of running away trying to get it wrong – think of it as a bunch of Orwellian truffle pigs, have journalists in places like Poynter and The New York Times considered how they can use their own platforms to bring people together? To promote a real commitment in a deeply politicized and polarized country where we could all make a greater effort to see the humanity of those with whom we disagree?
Finally, it is easier to build a consensus around truthful and unifying messages than to draw any marginal voice that could be wrong. The implicit message that unmonitored conversation between reasonable people is a threat will only lead to those who actually spread harmful ideas in the dark and encrypted corners of the internet.
It is best to remain skeptical of social networks and all its forms, but for now what is happening in the birth of the Clubhouse eliminates a low bar, being more promising than other social platforms. Elon Musk recently asked Vladimir Putin to have a conversation with him at 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 be started on Twitter and planned on Facebook.