"Positive, healthy, diverse"
Looks like fun. And by fun I mean more toxic than tumblr in echoing the same "positive" thoughts and certainly criticism against those who don't share the same opinions
Looks like fun. And by fun I mean more toxic than tumblr in echoing the same "positive" thoughts and certainly criticism against those who don't share the same opinions
A healthy community has healthy and sometimes necessarily intense disagreement in its discourse (just as a healthy mind questions itself).
A "positive" community has no disagreement at all - or at least none that go deep enough to resolve really serious differences.
The only way to maintain a "positive" community the way they mean is to simply ban everyone with views outside a narrow opinion corridor. But whose opinions will define that allowed opinion corridor? From the euphemistically fuzzy language and focus on good emotions, I think I know.
But that's always going to be impossible if a community has a mainstream appeal, since large communities will inevitably have different groups with different interests and opinions, and Dunbar's Number means people can only retain super close relationships with between 100 and 250 people.
...but that is a niche topic about a fictional universe. When a discussion forum must deal with real universe topics, like funding community projects, dealing with violence, etc., the forum will import all of the existing viewpoints, many of which may be at odds with each other and/or not "positive" in relation to each other.
That said, a lot of such topics do sometimes end up drawing their own vicious disagreements and flame wars and drama outbreaks. Just look at sports. Not a topic with a lot of impact real world wise, unless you're participating in it. But various fans of different teams are very much at odds with each other and discussions can easily turn heated. Same with fans of certain fandoms, with My Little Pony, Sonic the Hedgehog, Five Nights at Freddy's and Harry Potter being good examples.
So it's probably based on two sets of axis':
1. The size of the community
2. The 'seriousness' of the topic
A small community about a less important topic will be mostly rather calm. So lesser known games, lesser known sports, less known social activities, etc.
A small community about a 'serious' topic will often be prone to disagreements, though they might turn less toxic.
A large community about a less important subject will be about the same as a smaller community about a more serious one, assuming its fans/participants are not absolutely insane.
A large community about a deeply political/religious/ultra 'serious' topic will probably resemble a war zone.
A large forum based on a fandom with a lot of drama will be fairly similar to a political forum.
And if it's meant to have no rules, is aimed at trolls or certain types of hackers or about a subject which is about fifty thousand miles off one side of the political spectrum, abandon all hope ye who enter here.
I love nothing more than when high level participants who have fundamentally irreconcilable differences have explosive but on-topic fights. Even better when they surprise themselves and agree. These are special experiences you can learn so much from.
My real world academic community is "healthy" in the sense that we get along, have great conversations, and don't deride each other needlessly.
It's also upbeat. We're all mostly excited about what we're working on and happy to be working together.
It's not positive. If you say something stupid, we'll call it stupid. Some days you will feel stupid.
If the goal of a community is to keep everyone always feeling positive, it's never going to be healthy in the long run.
Our goal, and what we meant by using the word "positive" is that Imzy, and the communities on it, enrich people's lives in a positive way. That doesn't mean every comment, post, or discussion is positive. It means that I come away a better, more informed person from the discussions I have, or maybe I just enjoy my time there.
What that means is that extreme or sustained harassment that makes people unhappy, fear for their lives, or feel like they can't participate isn't okay. Communities that exist solely for hate aren't cool. But disagreement and even voicing opinions that are very unfavorable can still exist. Even saying mean things to people is okay, unless that's all you do all day following around a user or something. We all become better people when we can share our own perspectives and hear the perspectives of others, especially when they are different from our own. Otherwise you end up with an echo chamber.
While I could agree with "We all become better people when we can share our own perspectives and hear the perspectives of others, especially when they are different from our own.", I don't think that the overemphasis on perspectives makes it a particular trustworthy statement. It feels like it's a preparation for the demand of a relativist language. A conversation where everyone feels right, even if they aren't. Which appears to me to be some kind of a no-grow area.
Let me explain what we meant, because it's not that at all. I completely agree that negative content has a place and is valuable. Not being able to disagree or only being able to say nice things defeats the purpose of conversation.
Our goal, and what we meant by using the word "positive" is that Imzy, and the communities on it, enrich people's lives in a positive way. That doesn't mean every comment, post, or discussion is positive. It means that I come away a better, more informed person from the discussions I have, or maybe I just enjoy my time there.
What that means is that extreme or sustained harassment that makes people unhappy, fear for their lives, or feel like they can't participate isn't okay. Communities that exist solely for hate aren't cool. But disagreement and even voicing opinions that are very unfavorable can still exist. Even saying mean things to people is okay, unless that's all you do all day following around a user or something. We all become better people when we can share our own perspectives and hear the perspectives of others, especially when they are different from our own. Otherwise you end up with an echo chamber.
As an aside, this article also makes a big deal out of the "warmer, fuzzier" part of Imzy, and they're also the ones who used the words "safe place," not us. Are we trying to make things a little less toxic than we've seen some other places? Yeah, absolutely. But that's honestly a really small part of why we built Imzy and what makes us different from other platforms.
We've tried to build a really broad, flexible platform that makes it so communities can do all the things they want to in one place, with a developer platform to make sure that's possible. We've built in a payments system. We've designed it to be more user and mobile friendly instead of an outdated forum style. Those are honestly the things that I care most about, and the possibilities they open are what I think will have the biggest impact on hopefully making Imzy a really viable community platform that I want to work on, not the things that we're trying to prevent.
Hope that helps explain our thinking. I'm happy to elaborate further if you have any questions.
The platform sounds great, with solid potential. But if I found it as an outsider I'd be unlikely to explore it, because as an adult the site doesn't look like it's intended for me.
Personally I've found Quora conversations both interesting and useful. The branding is adult and the comments in my feed have genuinely fresh insights based on experience. There's some random opinionation, but not much, and conversations are rarely adversarial - possibly because they're more like monologues, and everyone gets a turn, and there's little incentive for drive-by commenting or flaming.
The point being that it's not just about moderation, but about the structure of the exchange and the culture. Quora seems to work because - ironically - there's very little direct interaction and challenge. I doubt that's the only way to run a community, but I wonder if it may actually be impossible to have public debates on difficult topics like politics without having to choose between heavy filtering and moderation, or one-sided communities with echo-chamber levels of agreement.