People

Moderation can’t wait: The challenges startups like Clubhouse face trying to build community

A former head of moderation at Quora says it's about more than inviting diverse voices to a network: It's about moderating them all to promote inclusion.

Tatiana Estévez

Culture will develop whether you want it to or not, says former Quora head of moderation Tatiana Estévez. That's why apps like Clubhouse need to start moderation and community-building early.

Photo: Courtesy of Tatiana Estévez

In just four months, Clubhouse has attracted users from Oprah Winfrey to the elitist circles of venture capital. The buzzy, still-in-beta app is an audio-only social network where people can host rooms to talk or just drop in for a listen — the conversations range from product growth strategies, to Black Lives Matter, to Jesus and Socrates.

But like any social network, the company isn't immune from bad behavior, even with the caliber of its user base and being still in beta. After an argument on Twitter between the New York Times journalist Taylor Lorenz and venture capitalist Balaji Srinivasan boiled over into a Clubhouse session, the app has faced criticism for not adequately addressing reports of harassment. Not great for an in-beta startup valued at $100 million.

That perhaps explains why Clubhouse revealed on Friday its updated community guidelines along with new tools to block and report specific cases of harassment. The accompanying blog post, however, seems to raise more questions than it answers about how it plans to police its platform and protect users.

To give Clubhouse its due, it only has two full-time employees and is incredibly young. But even just months into its existence is too late for Clubhouse to be thinking about how it is going to address harassment and moderation, said Tatiana Estévez, who previously led moderation and community for Quora.

"It is not something that you can push down the line because in a way it happens anyway," Estévez told Protocol. "Culture will develop whether you want it to or not. Tone will develop whether you want it to or not." She added: "I think moderation and community should be part of the product. It should be seen as an integral part of the product from the onset."

Protocol spoke with Estévez, who is currently working on "something new," after she wrote a widely shared Twitter thread on the challenges Clubhouse and other networks face when it comes to moderation and building an inclusive community — a problem that might only be amplified in a conversational setting where we know that it's easier for men to talk over women.

In an interview with Protocol, Estévez talked about the challenges of audio vs. written moderation, what founders should be considering when building a community, and whether it's possible to even have a safe space for conversation online.

The conversation took place before Clubhouse revealed its updated community guidelines, and Estévez declined to comment on its public statements.

This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

I was following the Clubhouse debate, and there were lots of concerns about the talks that were happening on the platform. And as you pointed out in your Twitter thread, audio is a hard medium to moderate. So why did the Clubhouse situation catch your attention?

I had no strong feelings about the actual debate that was happening, but it made me think a lot about the complexities with audio and how difficult it is to track what the actual issue is compared to reading a conversation. We all know in real life conversations what the dynamics are like. When it comes to people you don't know on the internet, we know that the worst of us tends to get amplified. It really made me think about those aspects and what are the possible solutions.

So you had worked at Quora where you were focused more on written moderation. How is audio a different beast to moderate?

So I haven't moderated audio, so this is speculation on my part, but you're not going to think as hard when you're having a conversation in audio. Even in a fast-paced online conversation, if you're writing something, you can pause, you can think, you're going to backtrack, edit. Whereas in conversation, you're saying it as you think. And that's going to be difficult.

You also have another aspect, which doesn't happen as much when you're writing, and that's tone. You could say something perfectly nice that with the right inflection, with the right snark level, it's going to be totally horrible. A few people have said like, could you capture this all in transcripts? But you can't capture that tone. Also, if you're going quickly back and forth, it might not be obvious from what one person is saying that that's actually a reaction to what someone else said a few minutes ago. It takes a lot longer also to listen. It seems like a higher-cost kind of moderation with a lot of quite easy-to-miss stuff.

To your point on tone, though, I feel like that's something in writing that is harder to moderate because in my writing, you don't get to capture my tone. So if I am being sarcastic, it may not come across as sarcasm.

There's loads of nuance in tone. It's a difficult problem because we're used to often talking about the extremes when we talk about problems with online moderation — like the really bad sexist comments or racist comments, and we all agree, that's bad. We want those people off. And that should be a problem that we're really dealing with.

But there's the other issue of the way people interact with each other: people that aren't intending to be assholes, but are making the place pretty hostile. And it's not necessarily obvious.

I've tried to talk about it by framing it into language that is easy. By giving it labels, I find people tend to understand it better. So when you look at the conversation, sometimes it's really not apparent what the issue is. But if I explain "this is gaslighting" or "this is mansplaining" or "this is sealioning" it starts to become clearer that there is a problem there, and it is a hostile environment. And this often happens with men and women interacting, especially men replying to women in a way that really makes women feel super put off with the internet. That is why places aren't as inclusive as they should be, even with the intent of wanting diversity in these spaces.

How should companies that are just getting started, like Clubhouse, be thinking about building a culture that is inclusive from the beginning?

So that's the most important thing — that they are thinking about it from the get-go. It is not something that you can push down the line because in a way it happens anyway: Culture will develop whether you want it to or not; tone will develop whether you want it to or not. So, if you're a founder, you're going to want to think about: What kind of tone do I want this place to be? Do I want this place to be inclusive? Free speech is important, but is it at any cost? What kind of rules and policies do I need to make sure that happen?

It doesn't have to be set in stone. In fact, it shouldn't be set in stone. It should be like, what kind of place do I want this to be? What kind of voices do I want? I could see scenarios where there's a very sort of a specific community for a very specific demographic, where inclusivity might not be a factor for that, but they still need to think about that and make that decision. For example, if it's an LGBTQ+ forum, they don't have to be inclusive to people who are anti-LGBTQ. Right? So you need to think about that from the onset, and then you need to think about who you're inviting in.

You also need to be really aware as [people join], are the voices that you wanted to speak speaking? Or is it the same people that are being highlighted? We've seen this in so many social sites that the default is men tend to speak more than women, and they tend to speak louder, and it's particularly white men. And we know we've seen that over and over again, and it's not an accident. It's not that it just happens to be that men like talking in social apps, there's a reason why [others] are being pushed out.

Do you find audio is a harder platform for this than the written word? I'm wondering if the keyboard is kind of an equalizer, or if you have found that men still dominate a lot of the online written conversations.

I think there's a ton of problems with online conversation, whether it's written or audio. There is something about the written word, which allows women to maybe address [others] with a bit more of equality. With audio, you have a few extra elements, for instance, men interrupting women. That's one of the interesting dynamics.

I don't know if you've ever had this experience, but you're having a meeting, there's several men, and you've been trying to speak out, but you keep being interrupted and men talk over you. It happens less these days, but still, I've experienced that quite a few times. And then I have to speak up because otherwise, I'm not going to get to say what I want to say. So I speak up, and then the men get upset, and say "let me speak, let me finish."

You have this dynamic where women are being interrupted all the time, but men are the ones being sensitive to this happening because they're not used to it. And so I did see this on Clubhouse.

I thought you made an interesting point that it's not just having diverse voices invited into the community, it's making sure that they're actually having a voice within the community. How much of that requires moderation versus proactive assistance on the part of the company?

I'm a community manager as well as a moderator. It has to be a combination. I think someone like me can help set tone a lot and set those values.

You also want the founders to be there setting those values, and it has to be something that's coming from the very top and has to be something that comes from the company. You're right, you need to look at product solutions as well, and that's not my area of expertise. But it's difficult. It's nuanced.

I think it's difficult because very few people look at these things, these conversations the way I do. I know a lot of men that are very sympathetic to this, but they don't see it, they don't hear it, and they don't always hear it when they do it, which is always difficult because they're often really well intentioned. Luckily, I know quite a few men that are willing to be educated on this, and are willing to hear this and accept what I'm saying. And if that happens, then I think then you can start to get those products solutions because when you really start to understand it, then it becomes clearer.

Do you think any company handles moderation well? These days we see Reddit in the news trying to address problems, while Facebook is being audited by civil rights groups who say it's dragging its feet.

I think what happens with a lot of companies is that they are in reactive mode. It's like when it becomes a problem, then they try and solve it. It's very difficult once your community tone is established, a culture is established, to then go and say, "Hey, we don't want this anymore." Because the power of that community is like, "Well, who are you to say we can't talk like this? We've decided that this is the tone." It's part of the identity of that product. So I think that's been the biggest problem with these companies in general.

The reactiveness of the companies?

Yes — they are dealing with it well after it's a problem. I think moderation and community should be part of the product. It should be seen as an integral part of the product from the onset. For every single feature, every single tool, every single addition, everyone should be asking the moderation team and saying: How can this be abused? Is this a vector of abuse? For what it's worth, nearly everything we use is a vector of abuse in the right hand, that's just the world. And it's like, what is the likelihood of that happening? How can we fix it? That's at the product development stage.

You don't think about it once you've had a droves of women or Black people leaving the product, having to go somewhere else. You have to think about [it] from the onset because the damage has been done to a certain extent if you're trying to deal with the result.

What else do you think people need to understand about moderating and creating these inclusive communities, which are more important every day?

I'd really like to stress that the online experience is not the same for everyone. And at the moment, we have a heavy online experience where the default is white men. It's kind of forcing people to adopt the tone of white men, or just go somewhere else and not be part of that. And a lot of women, a lot of people of color, Black people, LGBTQ, do not feel safe in this default white male space. And there's no reason for that. It's not OK anymore that people feel that these spaces are inherently hostile to them.

And you need to talk to these people — women, different marginalized groups, LGBTQ+, people of color, particularly Black people — and you need to ask them: What are the behaviors that are making you not want to be here? What would make this space safe for you? And I know there's some people who dislike that term "safe space." But I feel that's what we all really want. At the end of the day, we want a safe space to talk.

That's a great point. A lot of people hear safe space, and they think, "Oh you're cushioning people and keeping them from the truth" and that's not actually what that means at all.

If people knew me online, you would know that I'm very comfortable talking about demanding subjects and challenging subjects. And I think we can do that in a nice way. I think we can do that by being respectful to each other. I truly believe that it just requires a little bit of empathy for each other.

Podcasts

1Password's CEO is ready for a password-free future

Fresh off a $620 million raise, 1Password CEO Jeff Shiner talks about the future of passwords.

1Password is a password manager, but it has plans to be even more.

Business is booming for 1Password. The company just announced it has raised $620 million, at a valuation of $6.8 billion, from a roster of A-list celebrities and well-known venture capitalists.

But what does a password manager need with $620 million? Jeff Shiner, 1Password’s CEO, has some plans. He’s building the team fast — 1Password has tripled in size in the last two years, up to 500 employees, and plans to double again this year — while also expanding the vision of what a password manager can do. 1Password has long been a consumer-first product, but the biggest opportunity lies in bringing the company’s knowhow, its user experience, and its security chops into the business world. 1Password already has more than 100,000 business customers, and it plans to expand fast.

Keep Reading Show less
David Pierce

David Pierce ( @pierce) is Protocol's editorial director. Prior to joining Protocol, he was a columnist at The Wall Street Journal, a senior writer with Wired, and deputy editor at The Verge. He owns all the phones.

Sponsored Content

A CCO’s viewpoint on top enterprise priorities in 2022

The 2022 non-predictions guide to what your enterprise is working on starting this week

As Honeywell’s global chief commercial officer, I am privileged to have the vantage point of seeing the demands, challenges and dynamics that customers across the many sectors we cater to are experiencing and sharing.

This past year has brought upon all businesses and enterprises an unparalleled change and challenge. This was the case at Honeywell, for example, a company with a legacy in innovation and technology for over a century. When I joined the company just months before the pandemic hit we were already in the midst of an intense transformation under the leadership of CEO Darius Adamczyk. This transformation spanned our portfolio and business units. We were already actively working on products and solutions in advanced phases of rollouts that the world has shown a need and demand for pre-pandemic. Those included solutions in edge intelligence, remote operations, quantum computing, warehouse automation, building technologies, safety and health monitoring and of course ESG and climate tech which was based on our exceptional success over the previous decade.

Keep Reading Show less
Jeff Kimbell
Jeff Kimbell is Senior Vice President and Chief Commercial Officer at Honeywell. In this role, he has broad responsibilities to drive organic growth by enhancing global sales and marketing capabilities. Jeff has nearly three decades of leadership experience. Prior to joining Honeywell in 2019, Jeff served as a Partner in the Transformation Practice at McKinsey & Company, where he worked with companies facing operational and financial challenges and undergoing “good to great” transformations. Before that, he was an Operating Partner at Silver Lake Partners, a global leader in technology and held a similar position at Cerberus Capital LP. Jeff started his career as a Manufacturing Team Manager and Engineering Project Manager at Procter & Gamble before becoming a strategy consultant at Bain & Company and holding executive roles at Dell EMC and Transamerica Corporation. Jeff earned a B.S. in electrical engineering at Kansas State University and an M.B.A. at Dartmouth College.
Policy

Biden wants to digitize the government. Can these techies deliver?

A December executive order requires federal agencies to overhaul clunky systems. Meet the team trying to make that happen.

The dramatic uptick in people relying on government services, combined with the move to remote work, rendered inconvenient government processes downright painful.

Photo: Joe Daniel Price/Getty Images

Early last year, top White House officials embarked on a fact-finding mission with technical leaders inside government agencies. They wanted to know the answer to a specific question: If there was anything federal agencies could do to improve the average American’s experience interacting with the government, what would it be?

The list, of course, was a long one.

Keep Reading Show less
Issie Lapowsky

Issie Lapowsky ( @issielapowsky) is Protocol's chief correspondent, covering the intersection of technology, politics, and national affairs. She also oversees Protocol's fellowship program. Previously, she was a senior writer at Wired, where she covered the 2016 election and the Facebook beat in its aftermath. Prior to that, Issie worked as a staff writer for Inc. magazine, writing about small business and entrepreneurship. She has also worked as an on-air contributor for CBS News and taught a graduate-level course at New York University's Center for Publishing on how tech giants have affected publishing.

Boost 2

Can Matt Mullenweg save the internet?

He's turning Automattic into a different kind of tech giant. But can he take on the trillion-dollar walled gardens and give the internet back to the people?

Matt Mullenweg, CEO of Automattic and founder of WordPress, poses for Protocol at his home in Houston, Texas.
Photo: Arturo Olmos for Protocol

In the early days of the pandemic, Matt Mullenweg didn't move to a compound in Hawaii, bug out to a bunker in New Zealand or head to Miami and start shilling for crypto. No, in the early days of the pandemic, Mullenweg bought an RV. He drove it all over the country, bouncing between Houston and San Francisco and Jackson Hole with plenty of stops in national parks. In between, he started doing some tinkering.

The tinkering is a part-time gig: Most of Mullenweg’s time is spent as CEO of Automattic, one of the web’s largest platforms. It’s best known as the company that runs WordPress.com, the hosted version of the blogging platform that powers about 43% of the websites on the internet. Since WordPress is open-source software, no company technically owns it, but Automattic provides tools and services and oversees most of the WordPress-powered internet. It’s also the owner of the booming ecommerce platform WooCommerce, Day One, the analytics tool Parse.ly and the podcast app Pocket Casts. Oh, and Tumblr. And Simplenote. And many others. That makes Mullenweg one of the most powerful CEOs in tech, and one of the most important voices in the debate over the future of the internet.

Keep Reading Show less
David Pierce

David Pierce ( @pierce) is Protocol's editorial director. Prior to joining Protocol, he was a columnist at The Wall Street Journal, a senior writer with Wired, and deputy editor at The Verge. He owns all the phones.

Entertainment

5 takeaways from Microsoft's Activision Blizzard acquisition

Microsoft just bought one of the world’s largest third-party game publishers. What now?

The nearly $70 billion acquisition gives Microsoft access to some of the most valuable brands in gaming.

Image: Microsoft Gaming

Just one week after Take-Two took the crown for biggest-ever industry acquisition, Microsoft strolled in Tuesday morning and dropped arguably the most monumental gaming news bombshell in years with its purchase of Activision Blizzard. The deal, at nearly $70 billion in all cash, dwarfs Take-Two’s purchase of Zynga, and it stands to reshape gaming as we know it.

The deal raises a number of pressing questions about the future of Activision Blizzard’s workplace culture issues, exclusivity in the game industry and whether such massive consolidation may trigger a regulatory response. None of these may be easily answered anytime soon, as the deal could take up to 18 months to close. But the question marks hanging over Activision Blizzard will loom large in the industry for the foreseeable future as Microsoft navigates its new role as one of the three largest game makers on the planet.

Keep Reading Show less
Nick Statt
Nick Statt is Protocol's video game reporter. Prior to joining Protocol, he was news editor at The Verge covering the gaming industry, mobile apps and antitrust out of San Francisco, in addition to managing coverage of Silicon Valley tech giants and startups. He now resides in Rochester, New York, home of the garbage plate and, completely coincidentally, the World Video Game Hall of Fame. He can be reached at nstatt@protocol.com.
Enterprise

Why AMD is waiting for China to approve its $35B bid for Xilinx

There’s another big chip deal in regulatory limbo. AMD’s $35 billion bid for Xilinx, which would transform its data-center business, is being held up by China.

AMD announced a $35 billion bid to acquire Xilinx more than a year ago.

Photographer: Chris Ratcliffe/Bloomberg via Getty Images

AMD has spent its entire corporate life as a second-class citizen to Intel. That’s just one reason why CEO Lisa Su seized an opportunity with a $35 billion stock deal to snap up programmable chipmaker Xilinx more than a year ago at one of Intel’s weakest moments in decades.

The full extent of a manufacturing stumble that delayed Intel's next-generation chips six months became apparent in 2020, to Su and AMD's considerable advantage. AMD’s share price soared as it became clear the longtime also-ran stood to gain significant market share, granting Su a considerably more valuable currency for acquisitions such as Xilinx, which makes chips for data center networking, cars, military use and satellites.

Keep Reading Show less
Max A. Cherney

Max A. Cherney is a Technology Reporter at Protocol covering the semiconductor industry. He has worked for Barron's magazine as a Technology Reporter, and its sister site MarketWatch. He is based in San Francisco.

Latest Stories
Bulletins