Clubhouse, an audio chatroom app, is taking off, but the writers of the New York Times want you to know that the conversations going on there are unfettered, and the platform is “grappling with concerns” over harassment, misinformation, and privacy. And by the platform, we mean New York Times writers.
Unfettered conversations are taking place on Clubhouse, an invitation-only app that lets people gather in audio chatrooms.
The platform has exploded in popularity, despite grappling with concerns over harassment, misinformation and privacy.https://t.co/zeVeHlAZy3
— The New York Times (@nytimes) February 15, 2021
?Unfettered conversations?!?! ???? https://t.co/L1acHFzBCb
— Chad Felix Greene (@chadfelixg) February 17, 2021
UNFETTERED CONVERSATIONS!! https://t.co/Qgg5M1bzKY
— Arthur Boreman Once Held His Breath for 30 Seconds (@ArthurBoreman) February 17, 2021
My God. The conversations: they're unfettered! pic.twitter.com/ljaS52Tt83
— tsar becket adams (@BecketAdams) February 17, 2021
Without reading it, $10 says the byline includes the NYT lady who simps for the chicom facial recognition app.
— tsar becket adams (@BecketAdams) February 17, 2021
God dang, I'm good.
Just seems too perfect that the people complaining about "unfettered conversations" are the same people who work pro bono for China's shitty Vine knockoff. pic.twitter.com/kiM6hbkA7O
— tsar becket adams (@BecketAdams) February 17, 2021
That Couple at That Table Are Having a Conversation That's Just Out of Earshot. And That's a Problem.
— tsar becket adams (@BecketAdams) February 17, 2021
checking in on Clubhouse for the NYT like pic.twitter.com/OfjAcLTtai
— tsar becket adams (@BecketAdams) February 17, 2021
The latest moral panic. pic.twitter.com/Et0gJpd0uv
— tsar becket adams (@BecketAdams) February 17, 2021
The horror of allowing "unfettered conversations"
It's absolutely crazy that the New York Times allows someone with an obvious vendetta against the platform to continue to publish articles about it. https://t.co/jaeYXoMuNZ
— AG (@AGHamilton29) February 17, 2021
That reporter has kept an actual blog tracking anyone saying anything she considers inappropriate on the platform. That's not journalism. They have repeatedly attacked the people behind the platform, at times with false claims. Letting her continue to cover it is insane.
— AG (@AGHamilton29) February 17, 2021
'A new and rapidly growing journalistic “beat” has arisen over the last several years that can best be described as an unholy mix of junior high hall-monitor tattling and Stasi-like citizen surveillance.' https://t.co/O2lToLdve3
— AG (@AGHamilton29) February 17, 2021
https://twitter.com/JonFendler/status/1361843286785294338
It's literally to ensure that people aren't allowed to say things they view as harmful or dangerous on any platform.
— AG (@AGHamilton29) February 17, 2021
Absolute horror. I hear this is also taking place in person at households, pubs, cafes, community forums & video calls / conferences. We must crack down on these horrors.
— David (@DavidAGreen87) February 17, 2021
YES HOW DARE THEY SPEAK FREELY AND UNFETTERED. https://t.co/SjQPR5KDBX
— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) February 17, 2021
It's okay, Taylor Lorenz is here to bring the fetters https://t.co/3xrGvW1Dfb
— Ben Domenech (@bdomenech) February 17, 2021
Just imagine writing a headline with the full force of the Puritan righteousness of a 1980's Moral Majority televangelist that begins with 'Unfettered Conversations are happening…'
— Chad Felix Greene (@chadfelixg) February 17, 2021
They really do hate what they cannot control. https://t.co/PMX79Ru0mo
— Ken Gardner (@KenGardner11) February 17, 2021
Oh my God, someone better get in there and fetter those conversations! Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!
— Neal Pierson (@NealPierson) February 17, 2021
Perhaps @nytimes could launch the Fettered Conversations app where everything thing is always recorded. I think China has one they could probably buy out-of-the-box.
— Adrienne (@AdrienneRoyer) February 17, 2021
People are talking to each other? Oh no the virus was meant to stop that
— Sarah Eaglesfield (@zenxv) February 17, 2021
I really wish at least one NYT journalist was present in every CH room to mute speakers when conversations went awry and to do live fact checking to prevent the spread of misinformation. This would significantly improve the experience and elevate the conversations taking place.
— Skyler ☩ (@skyler_ws) February 17, 2021
I think just one wouldn't be enough. It would be best if it was a group. To prevent undue pressure and corruption, all decisions on what ultimately to allow should be made behind closed doors and should be final.
— Rory Murray (@therorymurray) February 17, 2021
So, fettered conversations only?
— Slashdot (@slashdot) February 17, 2021
unfettered conversations?!?! pic.twitter.com/FdRCc6GPzV
— David Hanlon (@HayBayDave) February 17, 2021
When they won't let you fetter the conversations… pic.twitter.com/qnFm9U77bI
— The Angry Philosopher On Drugs ? (@OfficialAPoD) February 17, 2021
All the news that’s fit to fetter.™️
— Kevin Watterson (@kwatt) February 17, 2021
How could such an app even be allowed on the App Store?
It’s these stories that led me to join it https://t.co/1AFBBv9zYf
— Bethany S. Mandel (@bethanyshondark) February 17, 2021
Related:
Clockwork! Glenn Greenwald BLISTERS NYT’s Taylor Lorenz for outright LYING to incite the rage mob and then playing VICTIM https://t.co/siLgzSxn1n
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) February 9, 2021