From the beginning, there were indications that the clubhouse platform was driving the life cycle rapidly. The week after launch, it was claimed to allow it to spread hatred for harassment and hate speech, including large rooms where speakers have been made Anti Jewish comments. The start-up scrambled to update its community guidelines and add basic inhibitory and reporting features, and its founders undertook the expected zuckerology forgiveness journey. (“We explicitly condemn anti-blackness, anti-Semitism and all other forms of racism, indecent language and abuse at the clubhouse,” read one Company blog post In October.)
The company has also faced allegations of misuse of user data, including a Stanford report which found The company may have been rooted Some data through servers in China, possibly giving the Chinese government access to sensitive user information. (The company pledged to lock user data and submit it to external audits of its security practices.) And privacy advocates have emphasized the app’s aggressive development practices, including Asking users to upload Complete contact list for sending invitations to others.
“Major privacy and security concerns, lots of data extraction, use of dark patterns, development without a clear business model.” When will we learn? Notre Dame – Director of IBM Tech Ethics Lab, Elizabeth M. Raineris wrote in a tweet this week that at this moment the clubhouse was compared to Facebook’s early days.
To be fair, there are some important structural differences between the clubhouse and existing social networks. Unlike Facebook and Twitter, which revolve around central, algorithmically curated feeds, the clubhouse is organized more like Reddit – powered by users, a group of occasional rooms, a central “hallway” where user progress Can browse in the room. Club house rooms disappear after they are over, and recording a room is against the rules (though it still happens), meaning “going viral” in the traditional sense, not really possible is. Users are to be invited to the “stage” of a room to speak, and moderators can easily boot up uncontrolled or disruptive speakers, so there is less risk of being hijacked by trolls of a decent discussion. And the clubhouse does not have advertisements, which reduces the risk of profit-and-loss mischief.
But there are still many similarities. Like other social networks, the clubhouse has a number of “search” features and an aggressive growth-hacking strategy means deeply engaging new users in the app, including algorithmic recommendations and personalized push alerts and a list of suggested users to follow Is included. Those facilities, combined with the clubhouse’s ability to create private and semi-lavish rooms with thousands of people, create some similar incentives to abuse and opportunities for abuse that have damaged other platforms.
The app’s reputation for lax moderation has also attracted many people who have been stopped by other social networks, including statistics Associated with QAnon, Stop stealing And other extremist groups.
The club house has also become a home for those who have become disenchanted with social media censorship and are being criticized by various gatekeepers. The attack on The New York Times, in particular, has become a passion for some of the clubhouse addictions, which would take a more complete column to explain. (A room called, in part, How to Destroy the NYT lasted several hours, attracting thousands of listeners.)