The Rise and Fall of Yik Yak(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
The Rise and Fall of Yik Yak
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/27/style/yik-yak-bullying-mary-washington.html
144 comments
Sadly it's what the parents today (who pay the tuition) are demanding. Hence "unique snowflakes" and "helicopter parents." Add to that a healthy dose of media sensationalism to a degree that never used to happen. Everything is drama, crisis, outrage, injustice.
Today? Old news. Decades ago, I grew up in a private Christian school with specially-oriented textbooks (e.g. "Biology for Christian Schools") to avoid exposing kids to information the parents didn't like. Heck, so did my dad (though his was less extreme than mine - more recently, when he discovered more of what the one he'd picked for me actually taught, he apologized... whoops).
Hell, what do you think white parents moving out of integrating school districts to keep their kids away from black students was about? Same damn thing.
Hell, what do you think white parents moving out of integrating school districts to keep their kids away from black students was about? Same damn thing.
[deleted]
[deleted]
When you want the best possible outcome in a lawsuit, you go after the parties with deeper pockets, and the greater incentive to settle.
I agree. No coincidence in Yik Yak shutting down and being absente from the lawsuit I guess. Was it about Snapchat, I would bet it would be included in the lawsuit.
So it's nothing new. The lawsuit is about the same old bullshit it's always been about: Money, power, domination, control.
Sadly, you are right-the-fuck on with this comment.
If you're imagining a student driving to class, you're imagining a very different kind of environment.
In the schools where these kinds of demands are made, the university provides your housing, food, utilities, medical care, the centers of your social life (both in terms of facilities and student organizations), local police department, credit union, etc. Even if you live off campus, the entire neighborhood is an (unofficial) extension of the university community. Even if you're at a private business, the university probably owns the building and leases to that business. Private apartment building, your neighbors are all students and faculty.
This typically happens in a small, walkable enclave where it would be very strange for a student to have a car or commute in from outside the enclave. The university owns every part of a student's life in this case, and it's reasonable to think it has some responsibility to keep its community healthy, within reasonable limits.
Your criticism seems more applicable to a commuter/community college, not a residential one.
In the schools where these kinds of demands are made, the university provides your housing, food, utilities, medical care, the centers of your social life (both in terms of facilities and student organizations), local police department, credit union, etc. Even if you live off campus, the entire neighborhood is an (unofficial) extension of the university community. Even if you're at a private business, the university probably owns the building and leases to that business. Private apartment building, your neighbors are all students and faculty.
This typically happens in a small, walkable enclave where it would be very strange for a student to have a car or commute in from outside the enclave. The university owns every part of a student's life in this case, and it's reasonable to think it has some responsibility to keep its community healthy, within reasonable limits.
Your criticism seems more applicable to a commuter/community college, not a residential one.
Without a totally Orwellian system to deal with this, how could a university respond in this case? I can sort of see where you're coming from, but there's no clear-cut solution that would be in the university's power. It might be their job to protect students from harassment on Facebook (and I would say even that is slightly extreme), but I cannot fathom how a university could even begin to approach monitoring Yik Yak. Would all students be forced to hand in their cell phones and decrypt all their data? Or should we just set up surveillance cameras in their rooms so we can see when they use their phones? Yes, there are reasons for universities to protect their students, but there is clearly a line to be drawn in this specific case.
Are you really confused? Leaving the law & federal funding requirements aside, Universities seek to have successful graduates & thus it is in their best interest to provide an environment that equips their students to learn. Being harassed undermines these goals, so regardless of the law, it is in their best interest to prevent such disruptions.
I'm not sure I understand the bird analogy. Is the point that Universities can't control birds? Well, Universities can & do already actually demand that their students not harass other students as a condition of their attendance.
I'm not sure I understand the bird analogy. Is the point that Universities can't control birds? Well, Universities can & do already actually demand that their students not harass other students as a condition of their attendance.
Universities seek to have successful graduates
Once, yes, but I wonder if that is true anymore in these days of $60k+/year fees. Do universities make more from undergrads or alumni donations these days? Because if their goal really is successful graduates then they are not setting their students up for success by policing every dispute. It would be completely different obv if YikYak was the "official" app on campus, but the university administration is nothing to do with it, and wouldn't have the power to block it even if they were. What are you expecting them to do exactly?
If a crime has been committed, go to the police, the real police.
Once, yes, but I wonder if that is true anymore in these days of $60k+/year fees. Do universities make more from undergrads or alumni donations these days? Because if their goal really is successful graduates then they are not setting their students up for success by policing every dispute. It would be completely different obv if YikYak was the "official" app on campus, but the university administration is nothing to do with it, and wouldn't have the power to block it even if they were. What are you expecting them to do exactly?
If a crime has been committed, go to the police, the real police.
Successful graduates become alumni who make donations.
To be clear, no one is suggesting that Universities should be "policing every dispute." I am stating that Universities can and do seek to create the most effective learning environment for their students--and that harassment undermines this goal. This is why Universities, as indicated in the article, blocked (aka geofenced) YikYak (& though it is not mentioned, other apps as well).
Not sure I understand how that's relevant, but most University rules are not laws--but, while breaking them may not be criminal or even illegal,it can still get you thrown out of school.
To be clear, no one is suggesting that Universities should be "policing every dispute." I am stating that Universities can and do seek to create the most effective learning environment for their students--and that harassment undermines this goal. This is why Universities, as indicated in the article, blocked (aka geofenced) YikYak (& though it is not mentioned, other apps as well).
Not sure I understand how that's relevant, but most University rules are not laws--but, while breaking them may not be criminal or even illegal,it can still get you thrown out of school.
At this point I could take this to mean that you're arguing for safe spaces. While creating an "effective learning environment" sounds noble, some students seem to be interpreting this to mean they shouldn't have to hear viewpoints they disagree with [1].
Coddled students don't make successful graduates, as evidenced by the interns that were fired last year after writing a petition about the office dress code that they thought was unfair [2], failing to understand that their job was not a democracy.
Of course, there are times a university should get involved, such as if the harassment is coming from a professor or university-owned email address. But at some point, the most I think should be expected from the university would be a referral to a therapist so the student can work through things and learn coping strategies. It may sound callous to say, but like it or not there are plenty of things that can be upsetting, hurtful, or emotionally damaging to someone without actually being illegal or even reasonably preventable. The university could help to make their graduates successful by making sure they are capable of coping with this fact of life.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/opinion/sunday/judith-shu...
[2] https://www.inc.com/alison-green/about-those-interns-fired-f...
Coddled students don't make successful graduates, as evidenced by the interns that were fired last year after writing a petition about the office dress code that they thought was unfair [2], failing to understand that their job was not a democracy.
Of course, there are times a university should get involved, such as if the harassment is coming from a professor or university-owned email address. But at some point, the most I think should be expected from the university would be a referral to a therapist so the student can work through things and learn coping strategies. It may sound callous to say, but like it or not there are plenty of things that can be upsetting, hurtful, or emotionally damaging to someone without actually being illegal or even reasonably preventable. The university could help to make their graduates successful by making sure they are capable of coping with this fact of life.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/opinion/sunday/judith-shu...
[2] https://www.inc.com/alison-green/about-those-interns-fired-f...
No, I'm not arguing for "safe spaces" here at all. Nor am I suggesting students shouldn't "have to hear viewpoints they disagree with."
I am arguing that, along with legal duties, Universities have an interest and an incentive to prevent their students from being harassed. To be clear, being harassed is not being disagreed with.
I don't see the relevance of this anecdata & punditry to the issue, nor do I know what "coddled" really means or why such a generalization would apply to every University. Regardless, pattern recognition over decades of experience tells me that people who are new to the workforce inevitably behave as if they are new to the workforce. And also, that with each new generation, pundits offer some variation of "kids these days." On the plus side, if we've moved on to "coddled", maybe people will stop complaining about those damned millennials!
Anyway, even if we disagree, I am glad that you do think that sometimes the University should get involved & that mental health services are useful.
I am arguing that, along with legal duties, Universities have an interest and an incentive to prevent their students from being harassed. To be clear, being harassed is not being disagreed with.
I don't see the relevance of this anecdata & punditry to the issue, nor do I know what "coddled" really means or why such a generalization would apply to every University. Regardless, pattern recognition over decades of experience tells me that people who are new to the workforce inevitably behave as if they are new to the workforce. And also, that with each new generation, pundits offer some variation of "kids these days." On the plus side, if we've moved on to "coddled", maybe people will stop complaining about those damned millennials!
Anyway, even if we disagree, I am glad that you do think that sometimes the University should get involved & that mental health services are useful.
If people are being harassed and threatened over an app, that is no different to them being harassed by POTS - the police can deal with that.
But if people are going to their university and saying hi, I installed this app that you didn't write or tell me to install, and I don't like it, sort it out for me, then that's an unreasonable ask, IMHO. It's like getting angry with a bakery because they won't repair your bicycle.
But if people are going to their university and saying hi, I installed this app that you didn't write or tell me to install, and I don't like it, sort it out for me, then that's an unreasonable ask, IMHO. It's like getting angry with a bakery because they won't repair your bicycle.
You bring up "interest" but original post is about "duty".
They aren't the same thing. Universities might have an "interest" in protecting students from online harassment. That doesn't mean a lawsuit alleging the university has a "duty" to protect students from online harassment has merit.
They aren't the same thing. Universities might have an "interest" in protecting students from online harassment. That doesn't mean a lawsuit alleging the university has a "duty" to protect students from online harassment has merit.
I was trying to leave law aside:)
But, yes, Universities also have legal duties to their students. However, these vary significantly based on too many different factors to speak usefully in generalities (eg based on city & state, public or private, is it a research university, is there some kind of consent decree, etc) and of course, the facts of each case.
More simply: whether a University has a legal duty to protect students from online harassment will depend on the specific situation, but, in all cases, the University will have an interest.
But, yes, Universities also have legal duties to their students. However, these vary significantly based on too many different factors to speak usefully in generalities (eg based on city & state, public or private, is it a research university, is there some kind of consent decree, etc) and of course, the facts of each case.
More simply: whether a University has a legal duty to protect students from online harassment will depend on the specific situation, but, in all cases, the University will have an interest.
The important question is actually "should there be legal duties", which you can determine from the original point: "I am just shocked at the amount of control, influence, and involvement into their students' lives universities are expected to have."
I (for one) believe universities should not have a legal duty to prevent online harrassment, even though it may be of interest to universities.
I (for one) believe universities should not have a legal duty to prevent online harrassment, even though it may be of interest to universities.
Kindly, I don't think that is the important question because that's not how legal duty works. Basically, there are always legal duties, some of which are codified & some of which are common law.
I'm not arguing there is always a legal duty here, nor that there always should be. I'm stating that whether there is a duty will always depend on the individual fact pattern & the laws/regulations that apply to that specific University.
Not only do Universities operate under different jurisdictions with different rules & laws--but their level of "control, influence and involvement" varies along too. This changes what duty there is--as do the specific facts.So such generalizations are not applicable.
Hope this makes sense; its not easy to explain!
I'm not arguing there is always a legal duty here, nor that there always should be. I'm stating that whether there is a duty will always depend on the individual fact pattern & the laws/regulations that apply to that specific University.
Not only do Universities operate under different jurisdictions with different rules & laws--but their level of "control, influence and involvement" varies along too. This changes what duty there is--as do the specific facts.So such generalizations are not applicable.
Hope this makes sense; its not easy to explain!
> Equips them to learn
I would argue it equips them for the real world. The internet extends off campus with them when they graduate.
I would argue it equips them for the real world. The internet extends off campus with them when they graduate.
If street corner pay phones and phone books were introduced today someone would sue because of the anonymous harassment they enable. It's hard to see where we are now as societal progress.
Rouge avians -> rogue avians
Rouge avians would just be red birds. Not sure which is funnier in this example.
My school had geese, which were definitely rogue-ass birds.
Rouge avians would just be red birds. Not sure which is funnier in this example.
My school had geese, which were definitely rogue-ass birds.
Seriously. Geese are evil.
After being chased one too many times, they inspired me to learn to hunt waterfowl. I get back at them every year now >:)
They're actually delicious though. I like duck, but I can't eat very much because it's so rich, but goose is a less flavorful, but still gamey type of meat. If you haven't ever tried it, I recommend it. Be VERY careful when you are eating it though, biting into a shotgun pellet can crack a tooth.
They're actually delicious though. I like duck, but I can't eat very much because it's so rich, but goose is a less flavorful, but still gamey type of meat. If you haven't ever tried it, I recommend it. Be VERY careful when you are eating it though, biting into a shotgun pellet can crack a tooth.
Why shouldn't the university offer some form of protection? Even if it's the form of blocking the app?
The police clearly don't give a shit. Someone has to do something. What are universities doing with all that money they get from tuition?
The police clearly don't give a shit. Someone has to do something. What are universities doing with all that money they get from tuition?
Blocking the app is a really extreme move that harms the vast majority of users who are using it in a harmless way.
Imagine if people started putting up fliers that said mean, harassing things on lamposts and building walls around campus. Would tearing down the buildings and lampposts be a good response? If the campus were just a big open field with no buildings or anywhere where someone could put up a mean, harassing flier then the students would be protected from being exposed to them.
No one should be harrased or be on the receiving end of mean behavior. At the same time, there usually is only so much a university or other organization can do to protect its members before those protections have negative consequences for lots and lots of innocent community members.
Imagine if people started putting up fliers that said mean, harassing things on lamposts and building walls around campus. Would tearing down the buildings and lampposts be a good response? If the campus were just a big open field with no buildings or anywhere where someone could put up a mean, harassing flier then the students would be protected from being exposed to them.
No one should be harrased or be on the receiving end of mean behavior. At the same time, there usually is only so much a university or other organization can do to protect its members before those protections have negative consequences for lots and lots of innocent community members.
> No one should be harassed or be on the receiving end of mean behavior.
When people say this, it comes with an implied "except for some people". Lots of people deny it, but it's true. I like adding this implicit addendum to posts on Facebook explicitly, because every time, the person says something like, "Oh, no, I mean that for everyone." And then I say "You mean everyone including, for example, Richard Spencer?" Now, I don't care about that guy, but I was fairly astonished at how many people were normalizing political violence that time when somebody punched him. That's when I first understood viscerally that every one of those statements about inclusion and tolerance comes with an implied "except for some people."
When people say this, it comes with an implied "except for some people". Lots of people deny it, but it's true. I like adding this implicit addendum to posts on Facebook explicitly, because every time, the person says something like, "Oh, no, I mean that for everyone." And then I say "You mean everyone including, for example, Richard Spencer?" Now, I don't care about that guy, but I was fairly astonished at how many people were normalizing political violence that time when somebody punched him. That's when I first understood viscerally that every one of those statements about inclusion and tolerance comes with an implied "except for some people."
What are universities doing with all that money they get from tuition?
Hiring more administrators and athletic coaches.
Hiring more administrators and athletic coaches.
> Why shouldn't the university offer some form of protection? Even if it's the form of blocking the app?
Why should the University be in charge of controlling what apps you use? If you don't like the app, don't use it, it's not difficult. Some people liked using it, and it had genuine uses, so blocking it is pretty extreme and pointless. And set's bad precident.
Why should the University be in charge of controlling what apps you use? If you don't like the app, don't use it, it's not difficult. Some people liked using it, and it had genuine uses, so blocking it is pretty extreme and pointless. And set's bad precident.
>The police clearly don't give a shit.
The police aren't surrogate parents. They're there to deal with crimes.
The police aren't surrogate parents. They're there to deal with crimes.
I live in the city of Fredericksburg, Virginia. There was a savage murder a few years ago where the girl who got murdered was being harassed on YikYak. I wouldn't go as far as to blame this app for her death but she did receive threats through it, which later turned out to be her roommate who murdered her.
>I am confused as to why anyone thinks its the University's duty to protect their students from "cyber harassment."
Yeah it does seem odd that a university wouldn't want its students to be harassed on campus.
Yeah it does seem odd that a university wouldn't want its students to be harassed on campus.
The article makes the case (to me) that local + anonymous was a failed experiment. In real-life communities, local means not anonymous, and bad behavior -- which is rare whether anonymous or not -- can be tied to an individual right away.
The problem is that nasty, anonymous, and local is a terrible combination:
> That hyper-localization is also what made the cases of harassment particularly galling. Ms. Musick, one of the plaintiffs, said, “With Yik Yak, in the back of your mind, you know they’re not from around the world or other parts of the state, they’re right there in your classroom, in your dining hall. On a campus with 4,500 students, that’s a pretty small group of people. This isn’t some creepy guy in his mom’s basement in Indiana.”
In contrast, nasty, anonymous, and non-local is much easier to dismiss.
The plaintiffs tried to solve it other ways, but they couldn't. All the local authorities referred them back to Yik-Yak -- the university staff, local police -- and Yik-Yak usually did nothing and at best would hide posts.
To be clear, most of Yik-Yak was non-harassing. Useful? I don't know. Apparently not useful enough.
The problem is that nasty, anonymous, and local is a terrible combination:
> That hyper-localization is also what made the cases of harassment particularly galling. Ms. Musick, one of the plaintiffs, said, “With Yik Yak, in the back of your mind, you know they’re not from around the world or other parts of the state, they’re right there in your classroom, in your dining hall. On a campus with 4,500 students, that’s a pretty small group of people. This isn’t some creepy guy in his mom’s basement in Indiana.”
In contrast, nasty, anonymous, and non-local is much easier to dismiss.
The plaintiffs tried to solve it other ways, but they couldn't. All the local authorities referred them back to Yik-Yak -- the university staff, local police -- and Yik-Yak usually did nothing and at best would hide posts.
To be clear, most of Yik-Yak was non-harassing. Useful? I don't know. Apparently not useful enough.
I'm not sure this is entirely fair. YikYak's undoing was doing away with the features that brought people to it; it was a very popular application, and continued to be right up until the de-anonymizing aspects were brought into play. It's function a digital bathroom wall was pretty well executed and in most cases, seemingly a success for interaction. It wasn't really good for anything else besides shitposting, but it definitely was something that people wanted.
I was working at a University in the heyday of YikYak and yes, there were bad posts. Since it was tech related, our administration asked my department to keep an eye on it, but for our school (4500 some students), the attitude was more moderate than it was abusive. Threatening or harassing Yaks were almost always down-voted off the app before we'd even have a chance to see it.
Obviously, other institutions didn't have the same luck that we did, but from my point of view, there was a very good moderation system in place from YikYak - sure, anyone could post something anonymously that was malicious and hateful - but it was incredibly easy to clear it from YikYak.
The student body also took a huge interest in making sure that YikYak stayed in the spirit of anonymous; lot of articles in the student paper about it, lot of rants on the random Facebook Confess pages, and YikYak itself was filled with comments about keeping "stupid shit" off of it. Did some kids still post stupid stuff? Sure, but the rest were more inclined to help with the upkeep.
I was working at a University in the heyday of YikYak and yes, there were bad posts. Since it was tech related, our administration asked my department to keep an eye on it, but for our school (4500 some students), the attitude was more moderate than it was abusive. Threatening or harassing Yaks were almost always down-voted off the app before we'd even have a chance to see it.
Obviously, other institutions didn't have the same luck that we did, but from my point of view, there was a very good moderation system in place from YikYak - sure, anyone could post something anonymously that was malicious and hateful - but it was incredibly easy to clear it from YikYak.
The student body also took a huge interest in making sure that YikYak stayed in the spirit of anonymous; lot of articles in the student paper about it, lot of rants on the random Facebook Confess pages, and YikYak itself was filled with comments about keeping "stupid shit" off of it. Did some kids still post stupid stuff? Sure, but the rest were more inclined to help with the upkeep.
>It's function a digital bathroom wall was pretty well executed
But is that an idea worth executing?
$73 million dollars down the tubes on a "digital bathroom wall." I would say I'm amazed that anyone thought this was an idea worth investing in, but sadly, I'm really not amazed at all.
But is that an idea worth executing?
$73 million dollars down the tubes on a "digital bathroom wall." I would say I'm amazed that anyone thought this was an idea worth investing in, but sadly, I'm really not amazed at all.
I know of no way that I can communicate with all of my friends anonymously.
Anonymity, and being able to express yourself and talk about your secrets/difficult life issues without worrying about social consequencesz is absolutely something that is valuable to the world.
There are lots of people in the world who feel completely unable to talk to anyone about their personal issues.
Anonymity, and being able to express yourself and talk about your secrets/difficult life issues without worrying about social consequencesz is absolutely something that is valuable to the world.
There are lots of people in the world who feel completely unable to talk to anyone about their personal issues.
Apparently it was. Just because it didn't monetize well doesn't mean it wasn't doing what it meant to well. Investors were surely disappointed but the userbase got exactly what it wanted and the app served its purpose very well.
The ROI for investors isn't a metric of actual performance. Truthfully basically any monetization method besides random ads or a shop would have killed YikYak just as other non-core features did, and those as well probably would have done it. All change the dynamic of the community in interactions for the worse.
The ROI for investors isn't a metric of actual performance. Truthfully basically any monetization method besides random ads or a shop would have killed YikYak just as other non-core features did, and those as well probably would have done it. All change the dynamic of the community in interactions for the worse.
Well sure, when you put it that way. ;)
Zephyr, the first IP-based IM system, briefly experimented with anonymity. It was similarly local--mostly being on the MIT campus (links to CMU zephyr being rare). I've not seen a historical record of the messages posted, but I've been told by multiple grey-haired alums that things turned toxic very quickly.
When I was in college a decade ago there were multiple sites like this. Juicy Campus was one of them, but I can't remember others.
You could find some really abhorrent things on there, but no one ever got into trouble. It's a shitty message board and some people get their feelings hurts. We're all adults though, people just moved on.
You could find some really abhorrent things on there, but no one ever got into trouble. It's a shitty message board and some people get their feelings hurts. We're all adults though, people just moved on.
> “With Yik Yak, in the back of your mind, you know they’re not from around the world or other parts of the state, they’re right there in your classroom, in your dining hall. On a campus with 4,500 students, that’s a pretty small group of people. This isn’t some creepy guy in his mom’s basement in Indiana.”
I mean is this really true? I was interacting with UCI students when I spent nights working in the Google complex. That's at least a couple mile radius.
I mean is this really true? I was interacting with UCI students when I spent nights working in the Google complex. That's at least a couple mile radius.
Seems like this would have worked better if the anonymity were weakened. For example, a range between "click this button to deanonymize" and "do roughly 30 minutes of work on a modern desktop to break the key that reveals who posted this" which is chosen by the poster.
There's still value in posting such weak anonymous messages, but the foreknowledge that it will eventually get broken would ward off the worst of the abuses.
There's still value in posting such weak anonymous messages, but the foreknowledge that it will eventually get broken would ward off the worst of the abuses.
> The article makes the case (to me) that local + anonymous was a failed experiment.
Jodel, a German YikYak clone, is still alive and well – in fact, doing better than ever.
Might be due to different environments, different moderation approaches, but it works.
Jodel, a German YikYak clone, is still alive and well – in fact, doing better than ever.
Might be due to different environments, different moderation approaches, but it works.
I wouldn't say we know it's useful or not. It went to profiles with handles and profile pictures. It lost its appeal when it did that. That's was when my community jumped ship to Jodel.
This article seems to miss the point of why Yik Yak really failed. It didn't fail because of bullying, or bad publicity - That doesn't discourage users from using the app unless they're the ones targeted. The app failed because of the ham fisted attempts to control the userbase and remove a problem that did not affect the vast, vast majority of the userbase by introducing the "Handles" feature, and then later making it non-optional.
I'm not even sure if this was a response to harassment, at the time it almost seemed like a pivot for the company - To become the next Snapchat or Facebook, sell targeted ads, and become what every other social company does. This was not what users wanted. It was the only place where people could truly make their thoughts heard without fearing social backlash, which is an issue of incredible importance for University students. And being able to talk with people of a similar age from your University was the perfect gauge for all those things you might want to say but can't. And the handles feature completely removed that. It became extremely easy to tie a person to a handle (Simply watch them while they've got the app open!). There was clear and immediate backlash and people started uninstalling the app en-masse, even posting on the platform about why they were doing so. Yik Yak reversed the update but the damage had already been done - People didn't trust the company to make the right decision any more, and the majority of users never reinstalled.
Note that I'm not saying harassment was good and that the company should have just thrown their hands up in the air and done nothing - The change marking offensive language was welcome, and responding to geo-fence requests in problem areas was fine. But the article fails to mention that the community moderation is incredibly effective. Stupid and offensive yaks were removed quickly through the power of the community - It only took 5 people to say "I don't like this" and you could remove a post.
Perhaps where I was (A small university in the north east of England), we didn't feel any real harassment. People posted racist and homophobic things occasionally, but these posts were quickly removed. Changes to the apps main functionality and appeal came overnight and surprised many people. They now hated the app, aimed at removing a problem that simply didn't exist in the community.
RIP Yik Yak. I'll miss you.
I'm not even sure if this was a response to harassment, at the time it almost seemed like a pivot for the company - To become the next Snapchat or Facebook, sell targeted ads, and become what every other social company does. This was not what users wanted. It was the only place where people could truly make their thoughts heard without fearing social backlash, which is an issue of incredible importance for University students. And being able to talk with people of a similar age from your University was the perfect gauge for all those things you might want to say but can't. And the handles feature completely removed that. It became extremely easy to tie a person to a handle (Simply watch them while they've got the app open!). There was clear and immediate backlash and people started uninstalling the app en-masse, even posting on the platform about why they were doing so. Yik Yak reversed the update but the damage had already been done - People didn't trust the company to make the right decision any more, and the majority of users never reinstalled.
Note that I'm not saying harassment was good and that the company should have just thrown their hands up in the air and done nothing - The change marking offensive language was welcome, and responding to geo-fence requests in problem areas was fine. But the article fails to mention that the community moderation is incredibly effective. Stupid and offensive yaks were removed quickly through the power of the community - It only took 5 people to say "I don't like this" and you could remove a post.
Perhaps where I was (A small university in the north east of England), we didn't feel any real harassment. People posted racist and homophobic things occasionally, but these posts were quickly removed. Changes to the apps main functionality and appeal came overnight and surprised many people. They now hated the app, aimed at removing a problem that simply didn't exist in the community.
RIP Yik Yak. I'll miss you.
A major issue I had with yik yak was that it really didn't work if you were going to a commuter school or lived in the suburbs then the local list was dead.
It should have a way to set your location by physically being there X hours a week. Then you could take part in a community even if you sleep somewhere else, but you'd still need to show up to be "in".
Or have a total population metric, some communities are more spread out. So the heard would be people within x radius or increase radius x until population is met.
At some point that's just going to become a subreddit with a very, very loose sense of geography built into it that's more of a hindrance than an asset. For this type of thing, you either go all in like yik yak did with the geo or you go all in with the idea of the community and non-geo (reddit).
I agree. Their app became popular as a place for uncensored, anonymous speech. When they started censoring and requiring usernames their customers spitefully deleted the app.
There are so few places left in the US where someone can engage in free speech. Free speech is nearly nonexistent on college campuses. Yik Yak was offering a product users couldn't find anywhere else. But they threw it all away.
There are so few places left in the US where someone can engage in free speech. Free speech is nearly nonexistent on college campuses. Yik Yak was offering a product users couldn't find anywhere else. But they threw it all away.
You can engage in free speech wherever you want. But others are also allowed to engage in their free speech as well, which they can use to choose to rebuke you, and choose not to associate with you.
And free speech is not dead on college campuses. Speech without consequences is dead, and that's probably a good thing.
And free speech is not dead on college campuses. Speech without consequences is dead, and that's probably a good thing.
i think everyone is just trying to fit it to their narrative of harassment or free speech when in reality it just wasn't that compelling of a product after a while. At my school it devolved into horny guys trying to get laid and shit talking about professors.
>There are so few places left in the US where someone can engage in free speech.
What?
Do you mean free speech or free speech free of repercussions?
What?
Do you mean free speech or free speech free of repercussions?
[deleted]
I'm a big believer in fully anonymous communication. Unfortunately, we live in a censorious age. Those who enable anonymous communication frequently become the targets of legal and social pressure exerted by angry mobs, mobs mostly composed of people who aren't even trying to communicate anonymously. Yik Yak fell in part because, instead of listening to their users, they listened to people who weren't their users.
The next Yik Yak needs to be fully decentralized --- with anonymous development, so there's nobody to sue --- and with a network architecture that resists technical blocking attempts. The next Yik Yak needs to treat censors as adversaries, not partners. Only this approach can bring anonymous communication to its full potential.
The next Yik Yak needs to be fully decentralized --- with anonymous development, so there's nobody to sue --- and with a network architecture that resists technical blocking attempts. The next Yik Yak needs to treat censors as adversaries, not partners. Only this approach can bring anonymous communication to its full potential.
How exactly does one achieve anonymous development in the walled garden of any of the app stores? Genuinely curious.
Yik Yak on ethereum?
Doing so, you're completely ignoring the problem of harassment. Not only ignoring, but basically putting up a huge neon sign saying, "Harassers come here and spew your harassment!" And I would have to consider working on such a project to be completely unethical.
I have little sympathy for Yik Yak. One of the other commenters mentioned that it was a forum for shitposting...it's true, almost exclusively. That's no business model. Good riddance.
If you really want local, anonymous communication, make a throwaway account on reddit and visit a given school's subreddit.
If you just want to shitpost, visit /b/.
If you really want local, anonymous communication, make a throwaway account on reddit and visit a given school's subreddit.
If you just want to shitpost, visit /b/.
The ability to shitpost with all types of people from your university was the drawing factor. I am sure that 99.9% of people who go to my university have never heard of 4chan, and maybe 20% (probably less) will use Reddit on a regular basis?
Reddit also brings the issue that you're stuck talking to the same types of people - Generally young, white, nerdy guys. That girl on your rowing team or, the one you met in a club last week and oh so need to know the name of certainly has never heard of reddit - but she will have Yik Yak! The barrier to entry is so low, and it used to be a real talking point on campus. It was a social faux pas not to have it installed.
Reddit also brings the issue that you're stuck talking to the same types of people - Generally young, white, nerdy guys. That girl on your rowing team or, the one you met in a club last week and oh so need to know the name of certainly has never heard of reddit - but she will have Yik Yak! The barrier to entry is so low, and it used to be a real talking point on campus. It was a social faux pas not to have it installed.
>It was a social faux pas not to have it installed.
So it's all over now? Any alternatives?
So it's all over now? Any alternatives?
There was people who moved to the app Jodel here, but it just doesn't have the same penetration as Yik Yak did. So I wouldn't say there were any true alternatives, no. Someone did set up a facebook page where you can message in and post gossip anonymously, so that fills some of the gap I guess.
I wish the author had spent a bit more time trying to uncover the inside story of Yik Yak as well. It would have been nice to see a post mortem from employees, investors or the founders.
Surprised it hasn't been replaced by someone outside the US who wouldn't be pressured to make it a safe space. Not discounting the potential issues...just surprised it hasn't happened.
The question is, could anyone else raise enough money to get something like this started again after what Yik Yak became? VC funds likely won't want to touch something like Yik Yak for a while. At the very least a platform that so visibly enables anonymous coordination of harassment is unlikely to attract the advertisers or sponsors they would need to become profitable.
Is it possible to make an open source peer to peer version? Seems like something along the lines of ipfs or dat would be a good substrate.
Is it open source feasible in walled gardens like apple or google app stores? With respect to dev costs, permissions, tooling?
Is it open source feasible in walled gardens like apple or google app stores? With respect to dev costs, permissions, tooling?
I've dabled a bit with creating something similar (but without the radius limitation), my current experiment runs over at https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmdsQExVDxp2EgERDZFn2Q7Q6Ldi3uH4XSpQTu4... but it's still missing being able to scale + easily be able to host supporting nodes for making the content stay around longer than the browser sessions. The repository is here: https://github.com/victorbjelkholm/tree-talk
I honestly thought that was the whole idea behind it. I think an app like this could be run for cheap, it's essentially a P2P messaging app.
Not surprising, no one has figured out how to monetize it properly.
There is Jodel [0] which is quite popular among students in Germany. It has strict guidelines [1] which try exactly this.
[0] https://jodel-app.com/
[1] https://jodel-app.com/guidelines.html
[0] https://jodel-app.com/
[1] https://jodel-app.com/guidelines.html
It's popular in Sweden as well.
There is Jodel: https://jodel-app.com/
Probably, there just isn't the demand. Snapchat snapped up most of the market (not anonymous but similar)
I'm an alumni of Usenet and IRC from back in the early-90's. I can assure you that there's always been (and probably always will be) demand for anonymous forums, into which trolls can project sexual frustration and feelings of powerlessness.
I was a bit too old to know about Yik Yak during its heyday, but I can only imagine the troll-appeal of anonymity PLUS being able to target local real-world individuals by name. Old school trolling was limited to targets who were non-local, and by and large anonymous themselves.
So I have no doubt about the market demand from trolls. I just don't understand why there was ever any demand from ANYONE ELSE. And I certainly don't see a path to monetization.
I was a bit too old to know about Yik Yak during its heyday, but I can only imagine the troll-appeal of anonymity PLUS being able to target local real-world individuals by name. Old school trolling was limited to targets who were non-local, and by and large anonymous themselves.
So I have no doubt about the market demand from trolls. I just don't understand why there was ever any demand from ANYONE ELSE. And I certainly don't see a path to monetization.
The decline in interest happened after they got rid of anonymity.
You're right, there has been a disturbing trend in the US of creating safe spaces for racists [1], like in the White House [2] [3], college campuses [4], fraternities [5], Trump rallies [6], and even Broadway [7], to enumerate a few examples.
But don't be surprised, because it's already happened: Germany's Jodel network is much more successful than Yik Yak, with its strict guidelines [8] against racism, discrimination and hate speech, so it isn't a safe space for racists, like Yik Yak was and the White House still is [9].
[1] Trump’s election has created “safe spaces” for racists: Southern Poverty Law Center’s Heidi Beirich on the wave of hate crimes: http://www.salon.com/2017/03/08/trumps-election-has-created-...
[2] Sean Spicer turns the White House into a safe space for conservative media: https://newrepublic.com/minutes/140896/sean-spicer-turns-whi...
[3] I'm tweeting from under my desk because President Obama wiretapped me: http://www.rollcall.com/news/opinion/capitol-ink-white-house...
[4] On Campus, Trump Fans Say They Need ‘Safe Spaces’: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/08/us/politics/political-div...
[5] The Trump Bros Have Found Their Safe Space: https://www.buzzfeed.com/annehelenpetersen/the-trump-bros-ha...
[6] Republicans who once mocked ‘safe spaces’ are feeling sensitive over protests : https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/after-a-campaign-sea...
[7] Trump demands safe space for Mike Pence after he was booed at Hamilton: http://www.avclub.com/article/trump-demands-safe-space-mike-...
[8] Jodel Community Guidelines: https://jodel-app.com/guidelines.html
[9] Mr. President, come out of your safe space: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/page/ct-trump-med...
But don't be surprised, because it's already happened: Germany's Jodel network is much more successful than Yik Yak, with its strict guidelines [8] against racism, discrimination and hate speech, so it isn't a safe space for racists, like Yik Yak was and the White House still is [9].
[1] Trump’s election has created “safe spaces” for racists: Southern Poverty Law Center’s Heidi Beirich on the wave of hate crimes: http://www.salon.com/2017/03/08/trumps-election-has-created-...
[2] Sean Spicer turns the White House into a safe space for conservative media: https://newrepublic.com/minutes/140896/sean-spicer-turns-whi...
[3] I'm tweeting from under my desk because President Obama wiretapped me: http://www.rollcall.com/news/opinion/capitol-ink-white-house...
[4] On Campus, Trump Fans Say They Need ‘Safe Spaces’: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/08/us/politics/political-div...
[5] The Trump Bros Have Found Their Safe Space: https://www.buzzfeed.com/annehelenpetersen/the-trump-bros-ha...
[6] Republicans who once mocked ‘safe spaces’ are feeling sensitive over protests : https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/after-a-campaign-sea...
[7] Trump demands safe space for Mike Pence after he was booed at Hamilton: http://www.avclub.com/article/trump-demands-safe-space-mike-...
[8] Jodel Community Guidelines: https://jodel-app.com/guidelines.html
[9] Mr. President, come out of your safe space: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/page/ct-trump-med...
What ruined Yik Yak for me was making the geographical areas larger so my University's 'herd' included surrounding cities too. Too much noise. This compounded with the removal of anonymity led to me deleting the application.
Wonder if it is possible to run an app like this at cost somehow.
Wonder if it is possible to run an app like this at cost somehow.
> Wonder if it is possible to run an app like this at cost somehow.
Given that it's just an API serving short text snippets, the hosting costs shouldn't be more than a few cents per user per year. Let's say you're serving one university with 50,000 students, and your hosting costs are $3,000 per year... Just send out an update email once a quarter with a few ads at the end and you've more than covered your expenses.
Given that it's just an API serving short text snippets, the hosting costs shouldn't be more than a few cents per user per year. Let's say you're serving one university with 50,000 students, and your hosting costs are $3,000 per year... Just send out an update email once a quarter with a few ads at the end and you've more than covered your expenses.
You also need to pay for staff to handle customer and legal complaints. That ain't cheap.
Customer complaints can get a canned response. Legal requests are paid, right?
Maybe in addition to having your users indemnify you for their UGC in the TOS, you could have users agree to pay you 25k every time they posted something like a bomb threat, rape threat, drug deal, etc.
That would be wholly unenforceable.
Just make them pay in advance. Apple's in-app-purchase system is pretty airtight.
In order to do a quarterly email that pays your the service you would have to achieve a minimum page CPM of $15 which at the industry average rate of $1.50 would need 10 ads sold and trafficked per email. Not impossible, but a lot of effort to source and manage that revenue and/or more frequent emails, larger rates (more sales effort) or ...?
You could definitely get a much higher CPM based off the locality and demographic. I'm sure there are local food places/stores looking for more student business that would happily drop $1-2000 for an ad that would go out to most of the student population.
At least two decades of start ups failing has proven that selling local advertising doesn't scale. However, At this scale that could work just fine.
To me, Tyler Droll and Brooks Buffington sound like joke parody names for clueless rich overprivileged frat boy brogrammers, from an episode of Silicon Valley or The Simpsons.
That was my impression when I saw them speak at the Atlanta Tech Village.....granted that place tends to attract those types but....
[deleted]
I can imagine the founders or investors going " hey! bad publicity is good publicity, let's ride it out" without an exit plan
I'm pretty sure it died because they started adding accounts and identities and stuff, which people didn't want. When it was fully anonymous it was popular, but once they tried to remove the anonymity, it started to die. It got a bit more popular when they started bringing back the anonymity, but it was too late by then.
A problem Yik Yak had was that it was primarily a university level product and because of the proximity features they had to restart their network growth after each vacation. Tying Location with some kind of organization or have a decay function for location based on time spent in that location could have perhaps fixed the issue.
Sounds like an ignorance is bliss type of story to me. Just because it may not be in some app next time doesn't mean nobody is having the same thoughts or says the same things in some other form. Blaming some app for the existence of harassment seems rather far-fetched to me.
[deleted]
In my area the young people all using Jodel, which is very similar. However it has some moderation etc features.
Pretty sure PiperChat killed Yik Yak.
Honestly, I don't get all the complaining from harassment.
We live in a digital age where we can control a large amount of our information stream. If we don't like something, we just turn off the stream. It's like left-wing advocates and Fox. They don't like it, so they don't watch it.
If you don't like what people are posting on some service, remove the service, inform people you know that you don't care about what's posted.
Go on living, stop being a hyper-sensitive prick about people saying mean things. They're going to say them whether or not it's on Yik-Yak, 4chan, or Facebook.
But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm missing something. Let me know. I love being wrong, it lets me learn new things.
We live in a digital age where we can control a large amount of our information stream. If we don't like something, we just turn off the stream. It's like left-wing advocates and Fox. They don't like it, so they don't watch it.
If you don't like what people are posting on some service, remove the service, inform people you know that you don't care about what's posted.
Go on living, stop being a hyper-sensitive prick about people saying mean things. They're going to say them whether or not it's on Yik-Yak, 4chan, or Facebook.
But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm missing something. Let me know. I love being wrong, it lets me learn new things.
"But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm missing something. Let me know. I love being wrong, it lets me learn new things"
So, I think the concept of society especially for teenagers in their school-controlled world is very interesting.
You're ostensibly right, "just turn it off", but I think it's more complicated.
So why would someone go to a place voluntarily where they are being attacked?
Maybe, it's an important part of the society there, an important forum that the most respected people are using.
Being a part of your local Yik Yak for teenagers is like going to I/O or WWDC, you're in the nexus of the community.
I think those chats acted that way for many teenagers. The location-binding feature is perfect for the insular school communities to create exclusive popular communities.
And to be as mean as they wanted through them.
Also with regards to harassment, Yik Yak would commonly be a place where people go to discuss real life harassment of others.
So, for those unfortunate few, they weren't going to Yik Yak and seeing harassment, rather, they never went, but their harassers used Yik Yak to discuss, refine, and promote the real life harassment.
I think it's very complicated to try and insert ourselves back into the insular school mentality to try and understand this, but I think it's simple that Yik Yak was/is a popular tool for coordinating real life bullying.
So, I think the concept of society especially for teenagers in their school-controlled world is very interesting.
You're ostensibly right, "just turn it off", but I think it's more complicated.
So why would someone go to a place voluntarily where they are being attacked?
Maybe, it's an important part of the society there, an important forum that the most respected people are using.
Being a part of your local Yik Yak for teenagers is like going to I/O or WWDC, you're in the nexus of the community.
I think those chats acted that way for many teenagers. The location-binding feature is perfect for the insular school communities to create exclusive popular communities.
And to be as mean as they wanted through them.
Also with regards to harassment, Yik Yak would commonly be a place where people go to discuss real life harassment of others.
So, for those unfortunate few, they weren't going to Yik Yak and seeing harassment, rather, they never went, but their harassers used Yik Yak to discuss, refine, and promote the real life harassment.
I think it's very complicated to try and insert ourselves back into the insular school mentality to try and understand this, but I think it's simple that Yik Yak was/is a popular tool for coordinating real life bullying.
School (I'm speaking of high school and younger) isn't the real world. Many things that are perfectly legal for adults are prohibited in school because they disrupt the mission that the school is trying to accomplish. There's certainly a grey area but things like dress and speech codes are well established and for good reasons. A service like yik-yak has no real benefit in an environment like that. In fact I don't even know why schools allow personal mobile devices at all.
As far as universities go, yes I think "if you don't like it don't go there" is much more realistic. Those students are all adults and by that age have mostly (certainly not completely) outgrown the most petty type of cliquishness and bullying that permeates the junior high and high school social scene.
As far as universities go, yes I think "if you don't like it don't go there" is much more realistic. Those students are all adults and by that age have mostly (certainly not completely) outgrown the most petty type of cliquishness and bullying that permeates the junior high and high school social scene.
That's very much not true. College students can be just as petty and cliquish and bullying as high school students.
And saying "Don't go there" isn't really a solution either. While the victim might not be there seeing it, everyone else is. They're still having their reputation damaged by the harassment brought upon them.
And saying "Don't go there" isn't really a solution either. While the victim might not be there seeing it, everyone else is. They're still having their reputation damaged by the harassment brought upon them.
Why bend over backwards and cut yourself off from your college community just to cater to jerks? Do you think the mods of HN are "hyper-sensitive pricks" for trying to preserve the quality of discourse here?
People seem to live under this illusion that the internet is somehow completely removed from real life, that the bigotry and hate doesn't count if it's over a computer. "Just close your eyes and pretend it isn't happening. So what if people are calling your house, your employer, your family; stalking you everywhere you go; threatening to kill you on an hourly basis; calling in a SWAT raid. Just ignore it!"
On the contrary, I think it's long past time our society grew up and stopped trying to make excuses for outrageously bad behavior. These aren't harmless pranks. They're part of a culture that normalizes hate to the point that it emboldens people to commit violence, on college campuses and elsewhere.
https://wamu.org/story/17/05/24/wake-college-park-murder-cam...
People seem to live under this illusion that the internet is somehow completely removed from real life, that the bigotry and hate doesn't count if it's over a computer. "Just close your eyes and pretend it isn't happening. So what if people are calling your house, your employer, your family; stalking you everywhere you go; threatening to kill you on an hourly basis; calling in a SWAT raid. Just ignore it!"
On the contrary, I think it's long past time our society grew up and stopped trying to make excuses for outrageously bad behavior. These aren't harmless pranks. They're part of a culture that normalizes hate to the point that it emboldens people to commit violence, on college campuses and elsewhere.
https://wamu.org/story/17/05/24/wake-college-park-murder-cam...
Thanks for saying this. Threads like this baffle me, make me sad and wonder if its time to just stop visiting this site.
If you don’t mind being bullied, harassed, or threatened, that’s great, but it harms people. Whether you think it should or shouldn’t is irrelevant. Personally I don’t know anyone who has experienced it that wasn’t harmed. YikYak specifically was also horrific for Professors. (& of course, it also had disparate impact on women and people of color). So, either you don’t actually believe it does harm or you don’t care.
Please don’t @ me about free speech or censorship; not only is it irrelevant to startups because they are businesses & not the government, but moderation & boundaries are what make communities endure.
We make choices about what we build & what behavior it will enable. Choosing to permit or even encourage such behavior is not a matter of principles—it’s a choice of who can and cannot participate, which, as YikYak, Secret 4Chan etc show, directly correlates to the viability of the product as a business.
If you don’t mind being bullied, harassed, or threatened, that’s great, but it harms people. Whether you think it should or shouldn’t is irrelevant. Personally I don’t know anyone who has experienced it that wasn’t harmed. YikYak specifically was also horrific for Professors. (& of course, it also had disparate impact on women and people of color). So, either you don’t actually believe it does harm or you don’t care.
Please don’t @ me about free speech or censorship; not only is it irrelevant to startups because they are businesses & not the government, but moderation & boundaries are what make communities endure.
We make choices about what we build & what behavior it will enable. Choosing to permit or even encourage such behavior is not a matter of principles—it’s a choice of who can and cannot participate, which, as YikYak, Secret 4Chan etc show, directly correlates to the viability of the product as a business.
>Please don’t @ me about free speech or censorship; not only is it irrelevant to startups because they are businesses & not the government, but moderation & boundaries are what make communities endure.
"don't @ me" about completely relevant challenges to your opinion that are based on axiomatic political principles is cowardly and foolish. free speech and avoiding censorship are not just legal rights, they are principles that ought to be defended. those who would argue for a world where the de facto standard is censorship because they are capable of a narrow legalistic interpretation of freedoms are hideously short-sighted. if you endorse the erosion of these principles in the venues where you are strong, your enemies will use your exact arguments to erode them where you are weak.
>(& of course, it also had disparate impact on women and people of color)
is there a term for this akin to 'draping oneself in the flag'?
"don't @ me" about completely relevant challenges to your opinion that are based on axiomatic political principles is cowardly and foolish. free speech and avoiding censorship are not just legal rights, they are principles that ought to be defended. those who would argue for a world where the de facto standard is censorship because they are capable of a narrow legalistic interpretation of freedoms are hideously short-sighted. if you endorse the erosion of these principles in the venues where you are strong, your enemies will use your exact arguments to erode them where you are weak.
>(& of course, it also had disparate impact on women and people of color)
is there a term for this akin to 'draping oneself in the flag'?
> free speech and avoiding censorship are not just legal rights, they are principles that ought to be defended. those who would argue for a world where the de facto standard is censorship because they are capable of a narrow legalistic interpretation of freedoms are hideously short-sighted. if you endorse the erosion of these principles in the venues where you are strong, your enemies will use your exact arguments to erode them where you are weak.
Although I agree with your general sentiment, I think you're being a bit bullish. It's important to understand what, exactly, we mean by "free speech". John Stewart Mill's On Liberty is the starting point for any such discussion.
In the essay, he discusses "freedom of thought" in this very famous paragraph:
But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.
The idea of freedom of speech isn't simply that "anything goes." In fact, the Supreme Court has upheld this position many (many) times: see Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire for the canonical example. Preventing shitposting on 4chan or on Yik Yak is not (I repeat: NOT) an infringement of free speech. There are no veritable opinions there. There is nothing that deserves the invokation of Mill's freedom of thought. In other words, there is nothing of value.
Note that this distinction contrasts with something like Bill O'Reilly's The Factor or your annoyingly conservative grandfather, whom you may disagree with, but who also might have some insight.
But there are some things which we've resolved: we know that Nazis had it wrong, we know that racism is immoral, we know that we landed on the Moon. So not giving a platform to anti-Semites, racists, or flat-Earthers is not an infringement of free thought, as Mill described it.
Although I agree with your general sentiment, I think you're being a bit bullish. It's important to understand what, exactly, we mean by "free speech". John Stewart Mill's On Liberty is the starting point for any such discussion.
In the essay, he discusses "freedom of thought" in this very famous paragraph:
But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.
The idea of freedom of speech isn't simply that "anything goes." In fact, the Supreme Court has upheld this position many (many) times: see Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire for the canonical example. Preventing shitposting on 4chan or on Yik Yak is not (I repeat: NOT) an infringement of free speech. There are no veritable opinions there. There is nothing that deserves the invokation of Mill's freedom of thought. In other words, there is nothing of value.
Note that this distinction contrasts with something like Bill O'Reilly's The Factor or your annoyingly conservative grandfather, whom you may disagree with, but who also might have some insight.
But there are some things which we've resolved: we know that Nazis had it wrong, we know that racism is immoral, we know that we landed on the Moon. So not giving a platform to anti-Semites, racists, or flat-Earthers is not an infringement of free thought, as Mill described it.
Popular speech doesn't need to be protected. It is never in any danger of being censored, almost by definition.
The only purpose of freedom of speech and thought is to protect unpopular, evil, and straight up false speech.
That's fine if you use your platform to exclude those that you don't like.
But we aren't talking about that. We are talking about platforms that explicitly ALLOW this shitposting, and yet other people who don't own the platform are trying to stop it.
Sure, fine, businesses can do whatever they want with their own platform. So how about we allow that? Those that want to censor can censor, and those that don't can not do so.
And it turns out that there seems to be a huge demand for a platform that doesn't censor and allows people to post anonymously. (yik yak only died because it went away from what made it good).
So how about those procensorship people just leave it be and let those of us who disagree with them go to our own platform?
The only purpose of freedom of speech and thought is to protect unpopular, evil, and straight up false speech.
That's fine if you use your platform to exclude those that you don't like.
But we aren't talking about that. We are talking about platforms that explicitly ALLOW this shitposting, and yet other people who don't own the platform are trying to stop it.
Sure, fine, businesses can do whatever they want with their own platform. So how about we allow that? Those that want to censor can censor, and those that don't can not do so.
And it turns out that there seems to be a huge demand for a platform that doesn't censor and allows people to post anonymously. (yik yak only died because it went away from what made it good).
So how about those procensorship people just leave it be and let those of us who disagree with them go to our own platform?
> So how about those procensorship people just leave it be and let those of us who disagree with them go to our own platform?
hypothetical: I've just told all your neighbors that you've got a criminal conviction for raping 8 year old children. It's just words, what's the harm?
hypothetical: I've just told all your neighbors that you've got a criminal conviction for raping 8 year old children. It's just words, what's the harm?
Anonymously on the internet? Sure, whatever.
If we live in a culture where people understand the concept of "people on the internet could be lying", especially with regards to specific, highly serious, allegations against specific people, then someone posting something like that about me wouldn't be a big deal, because nobody would believe them.
There certainly could be "harm", but I'd argue that on average, the harm would have a very low chance of mattering, and I'd rather live in an open society.
The more people are able to talk, the more they are able to get to the actual truth of the matter.
If we live in a culture where people understand the concept of "people on the internet could be lying", especially with regards to specific, highly serious, allegations against specific people, then someone posting something like that about me wouldn't be a big deal, because nobody would believe them.
There certainly could be "harm", but I'd argue that on average, the harm would have a very low chance of mattering, and I'd rather live in an open society.
The more people are able to talk, the more they are able to get to the actual truth of the matter.
> If we live in a culture where people understand the concept of "people on the internet could be lying", especially with regards to specific, highly serious, allegations against specific people, then someone posting something like that about me wouldn't be a big deal, because nobody would believe them.
We don't live in that culture. We live in a culture where paediatricians are attacked because a group of people was too fucking stupid to know the difference between paediatrician and paedophile.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/aug/30/childprotection.s...
We don't live in that culture. We live in a culture where paediatricians are attacked because a group of people was too fucking stupid to know the difference between paediatrician and paedophile.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/aug/30/childprotection.s...
> The only purpose of freedom of speech and thought is to protect unpopular, evil, and straight up false speech.
This is patently false. Did you even read the paragraph I quoted? I'm not sure if I even need to get into details here. There are hundreds of historical examples where non-hateful, and non-evil speech was censored. But you're being incredibly disingenuous by lumping in "unpopular" with "evil" -- the two are not even remotely the same.
You're trying to put an equal sign between, e.g., Communism (unpopular) and an anonymous post doxxing a rape victim on social media (evil). Give me a break.
This is patently false. Did you even read the paragraph I quoted? I'm not sure if I even need to get into details here. There are hundreds of historical examples where non-hateful, and non-evil speech was censored. But you're being incredibly disingenuous by lumping in "unpopular" with "evil" -- the two are not even remotely the same.
You're trying to put an equal sign between, e.g., Communism (unpopular) and an anonymous post doxxing a rape victim on social media (evil). Give me a break.
To be clear: I support free speech and oppose censorship by government. I don't know how or why one would want to enforce these principles on businesses--let alone how it would not run contrary to the most basic principles of private property & capitalism.
I said don't @ me because I've been in this conversation before & recognize there's little point in arguing when we are clearly defining the concept of free speech very differently.
Maybe I'm missing something, but weren't the majority of targets of harassment on YikYak as I described? Is it not ok to recognize this? Why? If we don't, it won't change.
Its ok that we disagree obviously, but I can't help but note that we are doing so on a privately owned platform that moderates its comments. Maybe you would, but I certainly wouldn't be here otherwise. Which maybe you'd also prefer:)
I said don't @ me because I've been in this conversation before & recognize there's little point in arguing when we are clearly defining the concept of free speech very differently.
Maybe I'm missing something, but weren't the majority of targets of harassment on YikYak as I described? Is it not ok to recognize this? Why? If we don't, it won't change.
Its ok that we disagree obviously, but I can't help but note that we are doing so on a privately owned platform that moderates its comments. Maybe you would, but I certainly wouldn't be here otherwise. Which maybe you'd also prefer:)
I believe you are wrong in assuming this blasée attitude is the right one or obvious one for everyone.
In a way you are overestimating the maturity of teenagers and young adults. In another way I think you are overestimating your own (and anyone's) ability to handle personal offense on a topic that you are sensitive about from a person that you know and it is close to you (you don't know who is, but you know you know the person, that's the point of hyper local).
The article touchs on that. One thing is a person saying things you don't like on TV directed to the masses. Another thing is a person far from you and who you don't know saying bad things directly to you and your friends. And yet another thing is someone you know and it is close to you saying bad things directly to you and your friends. This last one is much harder to act like you don't care.
But, ultimately, it is not about being right or wrong, it is about exercising empathy. Understanding that people react differently to situations and we have to consider that if we care for them. Doesnt matter if we personally would react so much better than them or not.
In a way you are overestimating the maturity of teenagers and young adults. In another way I think you are overestimating your own (and anyone's) ability to handle personal offense on a topic that you are sensitive about from a person that you know and it is close to you (you don't know who is, but you know you know the person, that's the point of hyper local).
The article touchs on that. One thing is a person saying things you don't like on TV directed to the masses. Another thing is a person far from you and who you don't know saying bad things directly to you and your friends. And yet another thing is someone you know and it is close to you saying bad things directly to you and your friends. This last one is much harder to act like you don't care.
But, ultimately, it is not about being right or wrong, it is about exercising empathy. Understanding that people react differently to situations and we have to consider that if we care for them. Doesnt matter if we personally would react so much better than them or not.
Ralph Koster's experience with online communities has informed his views. They are sophisticated because the problem is messy: http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1024060/Still-Logged-In-What-AR I look at online communities differently.
The problem from Koster's perspective is that when the target of harrassment/abuse/etc. turns off the source feed the feed still goes into the target's community. The communications analogy is not hanging up the telephone. The harrasement/abuse/etc. is delivered in public. Even if the target does not see it, the target's community does.
Perhaps an analogy is that one afternoon all of the target's neighbors opened their mailbox to find a flier falsely asserting that the target was a child molester. Most of the intended effect stems from the target's neighbors reading the flier. It doesn't matter much if the target read it. And in conversations with neighbors, "no I did not read it" does not make it better...and the fact that there are conversations with neighbors means that not reading the flier is not a way of avoiding the harassment/abuse/etc.
The problem from Koster's perspective is that when the target of harrassment/abuse/etc. turns off the source feed the feed still goes into the target's community. The communications analogy is not hanging up the telephone. The harrasement/abuse/etc. is delivered in public. Even if the target does not see it, the target's community does.
Perhaps an analogy is that one afternoon all of the target's neighbors opened their mailbox to find a flier falsely asserting that the target was a child molester. Most of the intended effect stems from the target's neighbors reading the flier. It doesn't matter much if the target read it. And in conversations with neighbors, "no I did not read it" does not make it better...and the fact that there are conversations with neighbors means that not reading the flier is not a way of avoiding the harassment/abuse/etc.
You started out talking about harassment and abuse but then gave an example of only libel.
The article is pretty specific. First of all, it talks about school kids who you can't really tell to "be rational about it". Secondly, if you turn off your phone but people still organize multimedia mass-harassment behind your back, "turning off your phone" doesn't change shit.
A third point is that "turn off your phone" is incredibly dismissive. A person shouldn't have to live without the Internet due to the actions of one, two, or twenty individuals.
How do you turn off real life though? These online streams aren't limited to existing just online. They spill over into the real world.
Why do you think bomb threats shouldn't be taken seriously? What about death threats? What about threats to do you bodily harm? When they start to harass you in the real world, where do you draw the line? At what point do you stop taking things seriously?
And before you brush all this off as "Of course that shouldn't be allowed" that's literally what is being discussed here, and you completely missed it.
Why do you think bomb threats shouldn't be taken seriously? What about death threats? What about threats to do you bodily harm? When they start to harass you in the real world, where do you draw the line? At what point do you stop taking things seriously?
And before you brush all this off as "Of course that shouldn't be allowed" that's literally what is being discussed here, and you completely missed it.
Sure. I'm sure that people are saying all sorts of bad things about Mirimir. And about my other personas. And about my meatspace identity. But I don't go out of my way to read that stuff. Any more than I go out of my way to read media that seems stupid.
However, I do get the concern about anonymous online mobs. If you're targeted heavily online, it's possible that someone will act out violently. Like that guy who shot up Comet Ping Pong over “Pizza Gate.”
People generally don't seem to handle online anonymity very well. But that's just how it is. Online anonymity is too important for many reasons to be killed over harassment. The key is to provide it anonymously, and make sure that it can't be taken down.
Edit: typo
However, I do get the concern about anonymous online mobs. If you're targeted heavily online, it's possible that someone will act out violently. Like that guy who shot up Comet Ping Pong over “Pizza Gate.”
People generally don't seem to handle online anonymity very well. But that's just how it is. Online anonymity is too important for many reasons to be killed over harassment. The key is to provide it anonymously, and make sure that it can't be taken down.
Edit: typo
Just last night I saw a message scrawled on a bathroom wall that said, "for a good time, call Mirimir."
Don't know if that's good or bad from your perspective, but I chuckled at the old school hyperlocal anonymity of it.
Don't know if that's good or bad from your perspective, but I chuckled at the old school hyperlocal anonymity of it.
Sure it wasn't Miri Mir?
She's hotter than I am :)
https://twitter.com/miricarro?lang=en
She's hotter than I am :)
https://twitter.com/miricarro?lang=en
My thoughts exactly. I don't like the idea of a culture where it's ok to think "you're saying things I don't like, so you should be banned from saying it completely". its unhealthy and causes more harm the more it's permitted.
> its unhealthy and causes more harm the more it's permitted
Interestingly enough, that's something that's even more true about sites for anonymous smearing of people in your local community.
Interestingly enough, that's something that's even more true about sites for anonymous smearing of people in your local community.
If consenting adults were the users, I'd agree with you.
But, in my town, this Yik Yak was used by high school, and some older middle school, students to trashtalk each other, both in particular and in general.
In my view it would be a good thing if parents of teens stopped footing the bill for the addictive devices that deliver services like Yik Yak and Instagram for that matter. For one thing, they'd save a bundle. For another, we as a community would have less cybersafety to worry about.
Good riddance to yik yak and the fratboy w##kers that created it.
But, in my town, this Yik Yak was used by high school, and some older middle school, students to trashtalk each other, both in particular and in general.
In my view it would be a good thing if parents of teens stopped footing the bill for the addictive devices that deliver services like Yik Yak and Instagram for that matter. For one thing, they'd save a bundle. For another, we as a community would have less cybersafety to worry about.
Good riddance to yik yak and the fratboy w##kers that created it.
You're missing a huge component. I used to play games where people would threaten me all the time. But they were Russians or Danes who lived halfway around the world that didn't even know my real name. Even if they were telling the truth it didn't matter at all.
It seems very different if they know your name. And where you live. And are physically around you all the time. It's not exactly easy to "turn off" that the person sitting in the same room as you has a decent chance of being the same person posting about how they are going to rape and/or murder you.
It seems very different if they know your name. And where you live. And are physically around you all the time. It's not exactly easy to "turn off" that the person sitting in the same room as you has a decent chance of being the same person posting about how they are going to rape and/or murder you.
[deleted]
DanBC(2)
_m8fo(4)
The issue is that you're punishing the victim. You're telling the victim of harassment that they're no longer able to participate in the community, despite them not having done anything wrong. And while you might not be interested in participating in things like twitter or YikYak, or even here on HN, others are. And it's really not fair to say, "You got harassed, now you don't get to participate. You have to go sit away from everyone else."
I live in the city where YikYak was used to harass an activist at Mary Washington University in Fredericksburg, Virginia. She was later savagely murdered.
I am confused as to why anyone thinks its the University's duty to protect their students from "cyber harassment." I mean, I am aware of Title IX and all, I am just shocked at the amount of control, influence, and involvement into their students' lives universities are expected to have.
If a student is driving to class and hits a bird (causing them gross emotional trauma) did the university fail to protect them from rouge avians?