Competition for Twitter

For John, BLUF:  Until this article I had never heard of Clubhouse.  On the other hand, I was happy not knowing about it.  Especially after I dropped Twitter.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Clubhouse's rising popularity raises misinformation concerns

From The Hill, by Reporter Revecca Klar, 21 February 2021, 08:00 AM EST.

Here is the lede plus four:

Clubhouse, an emerging social media platform born during the coronavirus-driven lockdowns, has given users a chance to connect through intimate audio conversations with virtual strangers even while isolated at home.

But as the platform continues to grow, the same model that has allowed users to connect while physically apart is raising concerns about how the app will handle the spread of misinformation.

Unlike traditional social media platforms, where a user’s footprint is more permanent, Clubhouse’s chat room conversations are not recorded by the app, making it "essentially impossible" to discern the spread of false information or harassment, Emerson Brooking, resident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab, told The Hill.

“Because your words don't follow you the same way that they do with a Twitter account, you do feel more relaxed, and that means the app is working as intended.  But of course, it means it also poses particular dangers,” Brooking added.

Brooking said Clubhouse’s model allows users to feel inclined to speak freely, without necessarily contemplating whether they’re sharing accurate information — or the consequences of spreading misinformation.

I wonder how he (Emerson Brooking) thinks his grandparents made it without someone blocking out all the disinformation for them.  It must have been very risky.  It is a wonder we ever elected Franklin D Roosevelt, Harry S Truman and Dwight D Eisenhower.

The only solution to this disinformation problem is:

ABOLISH ALL BACK YARD FENCES LOWER THAN TWELVE FEET!

We can’t have neighbors talking to each other!  They might be spreading false information!

If we believe that people are smart enough to vote for their leaders then we need to give them credit for being able to sort out the false from the true, which is what voting is all about.  That said, voting in the US accepts that some large percentage of voters, on the losing side, will be wrong.  Wrong, wrong, wrong!  They will not have sorted as well as the winning side.  But, it has worked for a couple of hundred years.

We need to be careful regarding messing with the flow of information, especially actions based on the idea that the voters are stupid.  The urge to curate information will lead to other actions that thwart free choice in our democracy, which means no democracy.

But, I am not a University Poly Sci Professor, although I did substitute for one for a week, until the union figured it out and sent in a professional professor to mess with the minds of the students.  :-)

Regards  —  Cliff