Yik Yak Systematically Downvotes Mentions of Competitors
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
Think about the point of view of a founder-developer. You have a list of bugs to fix, a bunch of people to meet with, etc., all while manning a pool of servers to make sure they stay up. Someone says to you, "hey, we're getting a lot of spam from/about this company called Fade." I'd bet a lot of programmers would just write "if 'fade' in message" before getting back to work on other things.
I totally agree that Fade spamming Yik Yak is bad, and pretending that they were wronged by Yik Yak is ridiculous. But that wrong doesn't make this strange censoring right.
It's especially troubling that the posts aren't removed, but rather, get softly automatically downvoted over time, making the process almost invisible.
Seems perfectly reasonably to balance the expression of users with "fading" spam. If a post really has strong merit, it can still get some visibility, whereas a deleted post can not.
- Your posts a limited geographically - The app knows your device ID - The servers should be able to easily detect location hopping
With all of that in mind, limiting SPAM posts should be simple.
If, instead, your goal is to suppress mentions of your competition, well that's a whole different problem set and you see how the implemented solutions works.
It's relatively easy to deceive an app about it's location; easier if it's running in an emulator environment. And that works just as well for iOS as it does for Android.
Yik Yak is anonymous and has no concept of users. Fighting spam is going to be hard.
I can't express how disgusted I am by the contents/comments within the app. It's full of hate speech, insults, sexism, etc. I find really disturbing that these sort of apps get vc money, really disturbing.
Yik Yak is basically just location-based search, so there's no social filtering. (As opposed to on your Twitter feed, where you create a social filter by selecting the accounts you follow).
Btw, I'm in Europe, so all of the comments I saw were in English, as in American English, so I'm guessing us Europeans aren't getting the best of the US. This is not data, just an observation.
Entirely off-topic, but what English variant is taught in Europe? I'm going to ask a German colleague to spell the word 'colour' I think.
(I realize that might be a good thing, but I presume then that you have the same complaint against Facebook, Twitter, etc.)
http://emutalk.org/2015/01/a-new-faculty-challenge-fending-o...
I wonder, do you oppose the funding of hosting companies that provide email services, or allow people to run IRC servers? Do you have a blanket opposition against the funding of services which are used to disseminate user-generated content?
I'm 33 so perhaps I just don't get it anymore.
There's a report button if anyone makes an explicit threat; other than that, when you hold a mirror up to society, it's not the mirror's fault what's reflected.
http://gimletmedia.com/episode/9-yik-yak/
I like how Colgate University dealt with the problem, but it's unfortunate that it's still there. On the upside, it allowed the conversations about the hate speech to happen in the first place.
"When Yik Yak was created it was intended to give everyone an equal voice. No one user would have an advantage over another based on followers or popularity and posts would be judged exclusively by their content."
Every account on Yik Yak is associated with a unique device ID. And each post can is visible to only people immediately around you. So spamming any meaningful percent of users on Yik Yak would be very difficult. You'd probably need thousands of accounts. If it ever happened, it would to easy for Yik Yak to detect and stop.
Under my direction no one on my team has posted anything at all to Yik Yak in many months. So afaik, 100% of the posts being auto-downvoted with the word "fade" are from ordinary Yik Yak users with no connection to the company. This is exactly the sort of organic "buzz" that the Yik Yak CEO Tyler Droll claims not to want to suppress in the statement he made to TechCrunch.
Yik Yak must know this because of its unique device IDs. Yik Yak can easily see that the posts that mention Fade are coming from regular users rather than spambots. That's why they are downvoting these posts rather than deleting accounts.
Yik Yak's downvote bot is new. Previously they just deleted posts with words like "fade." Why would they do this? In the GigaOM article just published, Yik Yak CEO Tyler Droll claims that the one-downvote-per-minute bot was implemented to "give people a chance to upvote [posts], which would keep them from disappearing." This is flatly contrary with the way their platform works. As the GigaOM article goes on to point out, even popular posts on Yik Yak average less than one upvote per minute, so everything getting a system downvote every minute is quickly deleted; nothing is "given a chance" to stay on the platform. Yik Yak must understand its own platform well enough to know this.
The only plausible reason for Yik Yak to switch from a simple block to a minute-by-minute downvote bot is to obfuscate to its users why their content is disappearing, to make it seem that their peers don't like it rather than a bot removing it.
Also Fade's notYikYak thing seems pretty juvenile.
That said, it's a shady thing to do, and while not illegal, it's certainly generating controversy and bad publicity. Time will tell if users vote with their phones against it. That's the recourse here: not the law per se, but the market.
Now, this would be a different story if YikYak had an overwhelming share of the market, and the DoJ were to view something like this as anticompetitive. But YikYak isn't a putative monopolist in the chat space. At least not at the moment.