Medium is a good platform compared to other similar platforms. They struggle with lack of transparency though and I wish they were better at that. Transparency doesn't mean they have to tell us something. Sometimes transparency is saying we aren't telling you the algorithm because too many are going to try hack it. But things like hiding impressions from stats and using vague descriptions hurt them. Like when they announced the new "longer" previews, they should have bluntly said 3 minute reads are free for non-members now. Poor communication fuels lack of trust and that's not been a good look for them.
Yes, I agree. If your mission statement is to attract a more educated, intelligent user group, that user group is going to notice things like that. I do appreciate that Medium is willing to admit they are working through issues. I've begun to understand that the human curator program is more significant than I first realized, particularly when you see other platforms descend into cesspools of hate speech. Of course, when you try to remove hate speech, you end up in an important and difficult debate about the boundaries of free speech. Sigh... at least it gives us some compelling topics to write about!
It encourages "respectful, educated discourse", but only up to a point. The moderators are power-hungry zealots who throw people who don't do what they want (i.e. me) off the platform.
I think Substack also encourages "respectful, educated discourse", based on the ones I read and follow, and they don't censor to the same degree as Medium, which I find nice.
I do find it troubling that you were thrown off the platform. Moderation is a tough gig. I'd like to see more moderation on some platforms. I haven't had any issues with disrespectful comments as of yet on Substack, but I don't have much of a following here. Lots of food for thought, thanks for the comment!
Medium is a good platform compared to other similar platforms. They struggle with lack of transparency though and I wish they were better at that. Transparency doesn't mean they have to tell us something. Sometimes transparency is saying we aren't telling you the algorithm because too many are going to try hack it. But things like hiding impressions from stats and using vague descriptions hurt them. Like when they announced the new "longer" previews, they should have bluntly said 3 minute reads are free for non-members now. Poor communication fuels lack of trust and that's not been a good look for them.
Yes, I agree. If your mission statement is to attract a more educated, intelligent user group, that user group is going to notice things like that. I do appreciate that Medium is willing to admit they are working through issues. I've begun to understand that the human curator program is more significant than I first realized, particularly when you see other platforms descend into cesspools of hate speech. Of course, when you try to remove hate speech, you end up in an important and difficult debate about the boundaries of free speech. Sigh... at least it gives us some compelling topics to write about!
It does indeed lol
It encourages "respectful, educated discourse", but only up to a point. The moderators are power-hungry zealots who throw people who don't do what they want (i.e. me) off the platform.
I think Substack also encourages "respectful, educated discourse", based on the ones I read and follow, and they don't censor to the same degree as Medium, which I find nice.
I do find it troubling that you were thrown off the platform. Moderation is a tough gig. I'd like to see more moderation on some platforms. I haven't had any issues with disrespectful comments as of yet on Substack, but I don't have much of a following here. Lots of food for thought, thanks for the comment!