How do you define politics?
OddsRabbit has a goal of being a non-political platform. However, that begs the question of what counts as politics?
If I complain about the federal interest rate being to high, is that a political statement?
If I say that social media platforms should be banned from collecting userdata and selling to third-parties, isn't that a very political statement?
Even if I praise virtues like free-speech and democracy, aren't these highly political ideals, that not all cultures value?
At what point, and how, is someone punished for sharing something political?
Sign up for OddsRabbit
Join communities like /c/askrabbitors and never miss posts like this. Every signup donates a meal for a child in need. Learn more
+4
View comments
Comments
Great question, it’s something I’ve also been thinking a lot about recently. If abstract enough, everything can be political in a sense, and that’s not what I was envisioning. To me, a post on federal interest rate is a post about the federal interest rate, not politics. Same for any post about social platforms, or political ideas. Where it gets tricky in my opinion is when it’s a post that targets and attacks an individual in any party or on the platform, solely for the sake of their beliefs. That turns a post from valid discussion to a political attack imo. That leads to a lot of tribal warfare and bad faith arguments which I don’t think adds any value. My original concerns were that it would bring in the bots, the bad actors and arguments, and overwhelm the feed. Politics as a topic isn’t an issue imo, it’s the concern on everything else around it. Having said that, the platform itself has evolved quite a bit, and the feed is in a much better place now. I’m considering making politics an opt-in/out feature. My goal is always whatever is best for a social platform that values genuine discussions. There’s no punishment for sharing something political here, it’s not that kind of platform haha. The worst case is that the post does not get discoverability. What are your thoughts on politics, and how a platform like this should handle it?
I think it's nuanced as you said, as the core idea of politics should be a fine topic. But unfortunately it also allows people to use politics as a dog whistle or some other hidden agenda to push a narrative. One of the reasons Im using reddit less and less is the overwhelming disinformation and tribalism with some very low value ads thrown in the mix hehe. Obviously OddsRabbit will evolve, but my take is, if people want to fight over their ideals and beliefs, there are already platforms for that. Keep this place good vibes only hehe. Just my take on it :)
Thanks for your thoughts! I totally agree with your take. I do want to allow politics because my belief has always been "who am I to tell you what to do, can post, or believe in" unless it actively negatively affects others, but at the same time, you are 100% right, too many risks for now.
I think anything reasonable that doesn't engage others to fight over ideals and beliefs is fine.
End of day, I think it's going to be a learning process for all of us to see what's fine and reasonable, and to determine what the right balance is.
Yeah. I assume this is a challenge that will grow with the size of the network. I think being able to toggle obvious political content is a good idea, with it being hidden by default, and have the algorithms not reward rage-bait. It gives the political hacks less advantage.
I remember one of the mass exoduses from Twitter when a lot of people went over to Mastodon. In the beginning there was an air of enthusiasm, and people just sharing their hobbies and pictures of themselves knitting and stuff.
As it grew, content became more and more politicized because the usual hacks got their audience. Last I checked it was horrible. Nothing but absolute doomsaying and fearmongering.
I really think an 'allow it, but discourage it, and definitely don't reward it' approach is good.
Thanks for the mastodon context! I guess that confirms it, if anything, as a platform, we can all consider it as an optional change down the road.
I for one would hope not to be silenced for complaining about not being able to buy my favorite electronic gizmo because I had to mention the Vat tax and the tarrifs tax from that country that's banned on the internet because some world leader went overboard...?.....I should have put some punctuation in there somewhere........ But now if I start taking about this country is a socialist communist state of existence.....Or this or that leader of the (insert country name here ) is insane and should be shot , I expect to be put in time out or short banned.
I've been thinking about this a lot too. It's a very tough line to walk, and politics, in many peoples' minds, does indeed include a wide range of topics, from gas prices to censorship.
I also do not want to be censored.
I mostly agree with the sentiment that there are plenty of other platforms you can use if you want to talk politics. It only saddens me because, at least at this point in development, I think it would be nice to talk politics with people who may have left reddit in part because of how badly the political discussions go. But it's really a pipe dream to think we can keep bad actors and trolls out of political discourse for long.
The vague idea that just occurred to me is to maybe focus on disallowing *partisan* discussions. But that would still be tough to do. I just like the idea of being able to have a conversation about, say, food insecurity, without it turning into an argument about a certain party being responsible for food insecurity.
Of course this is tough for a few reasons, one being that American politics and parties are different from other countries', and applying the same rules to all may cause issues. Another is that sometimes you simply can't separate them. If you talk about poverty in America, that will almost certainly lead to talking about the 1%, which will lead to talking about how evil billionaires are, and how they control our government.
On reddit, there seems to be only one somewhat effective way to handle this. An example would be r/SSDI. The rules state:
"Posts or comments about politics or religion are not allowed. While we respect everyone's freedom of speech, discussions on these topics are not productive for our group and can lead to unnecessary conflicts. Our focus is on providing support and accurate information related to our group's purpose."
I think that's pretty reasonable. People go there for help on filling out the application, gathering medical records, etc. You wouldn't want people asking for help to be overlooked because everyone is on the threads arguing about the politics. But I think the only reason that works is because if you want to talk about the politics and discrimination towards disabled and poor people, and how broken our social support systems are, you have several other subs on which to do that.
I suppose in the case of OddsRabbit, maybe that kind of rule is still a good one, and if someone wants to talk about the political side of something like this they can go to reddit or some other political platform.
I still lean towards making it an opt-in feature. It's good to be able to tweak *exactly* which communities you don't want to see content from, but for politics maybe add a sort of guide that suggests, "here are some communities you may want to suppress if you don't want to see politics here," with a one-click option of "suppress all political communities" which would of course be up to Jing's discretion which communities would be on that list.
Three things guaranteed to cause a squabble ,Religion, Politics, Sexual preferences. Being rewarded for bad Behavior content on these subjects to me is troll rage baiting. I'm sure I can go to a different site to find news of this or that holy war torture ,rape and mutilate another groups for whatever ingrained ideology they grew up believing.