Talk:Alt-tech/Archive 1

Archive 1

Taxonomy

This article by Julia Ebner provides a taxonomy of alt-tech platforms:

• those explicitly geared towards extremist use like Hatreon,
• those built on an ultra-libertarian free speech ideology such as Gab or Thinkspot,
• those built for a different purpose and co-opted, such as Discord,
• and finally fringe platforms like 8chan.

Might be useful to sort out this topic, which is intrinsically a little difficult to parse out. Jlevi (talk) 17:51, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Good source

There's a lot in doi:10.14361/9783839446706-004 that could be useful to this article. Doubt I'll have the time to do it tonight so just leaving this note for anyone else who's got the time, or for myself to do later on. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

not free

<ref name="Freelon-Science">: remove: |doi-access=free. It isn't. Just the abstract.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 January 2021

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Daviidfaltas13 (talk • contribs)

 Note: Article content removed from talk page and previous talk page contents restored. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Daviidfaltas13: Please do not copy the article to the talk page and make changes, as we cannot see what changes you would like. If you would like to request that an edit be made, make your request in the form of "Change X to Y" and reopen the request. Also, please do not edit or remove others' talk page comments - see WP:TPO. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

This article is a complete biased mess, and should probably be completly reworked if not scrapped. For example the Telegram article on the wiki mentions that it's the 8th most downloaded application worldwide with 500 million users yet some random article calls it "alt-tech" and now it shows up here as fact. Same with Discord (250 million users), 4chan, etc... apps and websites that are very significant if not dominant in their niches.Helixdq (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Where in this article does it state that the size of a platform's userbase has any bearing on whether a platform is alt-tech? As with any article on Wikipedia, we strive to represent what is published in reliable sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Probably makes sense to remove the <many of them are right wing> vagueness and go with specifics. Some of these are by no stretch of the imagination predominantly right wing or even predominantly far right of center at all. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you referring to [alt-tech platforms] have become popular among the alt-right, far-right, and others who espouse extreme and fringe viewpoints? Because at least in my opinion that is true of all the platforms listed here. That doesn't mean that all of them have userbases that are primarily right-wing—some of them certainly do, but you're correct that there are some (Discord and Telegram IMO being the two major ones listed here) that are used widely outside of the right-wing. Note: I believe the sources currently being used to support that statement are speaking about alt-tech in general rather than individual sites, which is why I'm just giving you my personal opinion, but I'll double check that once I'm on my computer where I have these sources available to me—I don't have access to all of them on my current machine. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Sounds true. I think we agree on the facts here. I feel the article could better represent them. And thanks for the fix below. The (presumably) well-meaning but mass deaths-causing censorship of the World Federation of Advertisers' Global Alliance for Responsible Media that is a side effect of efforts to quell fake news result in a quagmire. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 01:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Can 4chan really be considered Alt when it predates most mainstream sites?

4chan began in 2003, 2 years prior to the "Mainstream" reddit that it's compared to, as well as predating facebook and twitter. It's been a cultural icon and had great influence and has been noted by big companies, as well as Fox News, for over a decade and a half. 4chan is more " Old School Mainstream" and has Alt-tech counterparts such as 8chan, Bunkerchan, etc.

It wasn't made to be an alternate to anything present in the English speaking world, it simply was an English variant of the 2ch imageboard format and created it's own subculture of imageboards, of which alternates were made to express more fringe opinions. Katacles (talk) 03:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It ought to be mentioned in the article because at least one RS describes it as alt tech. But as I've mentioned a few sections up, the table and some of its contents need to be removed because they're unsourced, and lead to confusing matters such as this. I have not seen a source that describes 4chan as alt-tech and compares it to Reddit as the mainstream offering.

That said, I don't think it's accurate to assume all alt-tech software will postdate the software to which it's considered an alternative. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider 4chan an alternate to reddit at all, reddit is a forum while 4chan is an imageboard. The majority of 4chan is apolitical (73/75) and reddit can act as a news aggregator, where as 4chan is unfriendly for being a news aggregator since it's driven by posts that terminate when they reach the end of page 10.

It serves as an original concept, and has alternates that can be clearly defined as alternatives to curate their own culture and userbase to enable certain views and discussions. I realize Wikipedia relies on "Reliable Sources" to maintain integrity, and that it's not up to users to contest it here, but I believe that the comparison should be removed, or an additional segment on the chart to be made for imageboards, with 4chan being "mainstream" and 8chan and other imageboards being the alternative, given their more fringe content in contrast, while 4chan is more strict in moderation. Voat is a very good comparison for an alternate to reddit. Katacles (talk) 04:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we are in agreement. The table and the comparisons within are unsourced and need to be removed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Considering most websites getting described with this neologism preexist it by several years, I see no reason why 4chan shouldn't be similarly described. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 13:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced table of alt tech platforms and other changes

@Munmula: The version of this article that you introduced, and then just now restored after it was challenged, is not usable. We can't introduce this kind of original research, and it is lacking sources for nearly all of the new information.

Per WP:BRD, please achieve consensus for this new version before reintroducing it after it's been challenged. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. The table introduced is not original research. It refers to sources where those websites are described as alternatives to more popular ones. Also, my recent edits include not only the table, but rewording and re-division of the article to describe the subject in more detail and more objectively, still according to sources, and discuss the political radicalism part in detail on its own session.

However, if my opinion is not shared by anyone else, I'll have to abide by consensus. Pinging other users that have edited recently: @Hirsutism:, @Jlevi:, @Serafart: @Pahunkat: You are invited to state your opinions on this matter. - Munmula (talk), second account of Alumnum 22:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

There's a difference between sources referring to a site/platform as an alternative to some other site/platform, and a source describing a service as "alt-tech". The diff is a little hard to read because of the size of the edit, but when I compare your revision to the current revision, I'm seeing exactly the same references. So where are these new references you're claiming the table includes?

Furthermore, your edit made changes to the wording that is not supported by sourcing, such as attributing statements to "critics". GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey Munmula, the table is still unsourced. Please revert. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I have reintroduced the table hiding the services that the sources do not describe as alt-tech, so we can unhide them when new sources are added. I may find and add them myself in a while. I believe that a table like that will become increasingly necessary with time, given the growing usage of the term. - Munmula (talk), second account of Alumnum 03:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

We can add well-sourced content when sources are written, we don't hide original research in hidden comments in the hopes that it may someday become sourced. It makes things confusing when editing. But besides that, there is visible content that I'm not seeing sources for. Where is the sourcing for Signal, Element, Brave, Vivaldi, or Aptoide? What about sourcing for the "traditional platforms" column, to verify that those are the traditional platforms the alt-tech services have actually been compared to? GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

You are absolutely right in saying that these need reliable sources, but remember WP:5P5 and that the presence of these entries may even encourage other users to add better sources they may happen to know about. I believe there are current sources for these; they only need to be found. If you still want to strictly abide by what our policies say, I think some bits of WP:OR are noteworthy:

The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material (...) for which no reliable, published sources exist.

By "exists", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source.

Sometimes, time is what we need for good sources to come. Alt-tech is a newly coined term, but as I said above, I myself may add them in a day or two. - Munmula (talk), second account of Alumnum 04:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It also says, "The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged". Since you've just acknowledged you cannot do so, I will be reverting. Please suggest your changes on the talk page next time first, and provide sources. Writing an article based on conjecture when you have no idea if sources can be found to support what you're saying is not acceptable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I like the table, I think it is succinct and organized. Perhaps a good compromise would be to leave the table but delete the "traditional platforms" column. I also see citations for all the alt-tech in an efn. Maybe we can move those citations into the table. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, I have no strong objection to the use of a table. It is the unsourced content in the table, as well as the other non-table-related edits of Munmula's that I am objecting to. If you want to reflect the well-sourced info in table format, by all means be my guest. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, as I recall the table had three columns:

• type
• mainstream equivalent
• alt tech company

What exactly would you like to see cited? Here's my initial thoughts:

• type - fact, probably doesn't need sourcing, the leads of their respective articles state the type of company
• mainstream equivalent - this one I'm iffy on. Do you want this deleted, or can we keep?
• alt tech company - we have sources for all these

Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: We need cites to sources that specifically call the company "alt-tech". Some of the ones added in the table were not cited. I also think we need a cite to support that alt-tech company X has been described as an alternative to mainstream company Y; otherwise we end up with confusion like in #Can 4chan really be considered Alt when it predates most mainstream sites? where it appeared that we were claiming 4chan was an alt-tech alternative to Reddit (which perhaps some people have said, but afaik was not sourced). GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Completely new to editing Wiki's, but I think the table is highly relevant right now and provides important information about alt-tech vs big-tech. I am not sure how to properly "source" it, but this should be done ASAP to provide a hot page with maximal info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KaiserKapital (talk • contribs) 05:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

We need to add a column that says if the platform is free-speech or not. The alt-tech page implies all these companies are far-right platforms, which is not the case. Some are unfairly grouped and have policies that restrict speech. Another idea, maybe two different tables; one for free-speech, a second for platforms that have restrictions on speech. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The alt-tech page implies all these companies are far-right platforms This page specifically says that there are more ideologically neutral companies, and quotes researchers saying "Many, but not all of these alt-tech sites are far-right communities." As for your suggestion, I don't think we should do that because it would be describing the platforms as "free speech platforms" in wiki-voice. Parler, for example, describes itself as a free speech platform, but that description has in fact been heavily contested by RS. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Good point on the free speech part, I'm not sure how to define the differences better, that was my attempt. But I definitely don't think saying "Many, but not all" is sufficient to represent a fair balanced article when its buried at the bottom of the page. This needs to be brought into the first paragraph to properly and fairly represent the list of companies listed. We should make clear there are companies that do not allow anti-semetism, racism and harassment. This is important, otherwise the reader is left with the impression that most companies don't do it and they have no idea which ones are more ideologically neutral. Does that make sense? Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Canadianr0ckstar2000: Does this help with "many, not all" concern? GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality of the article

The article seems biased towards displaying any alternative to Big Tech social media platforms as far-right supporting platforms, or basically naming any such platforms with alt-right groups as "alt-tech".

• "Big Tech" is not even named once in this article, when most if not all platforms listed here tend to be the largest competitors to those. In fact, the article tends to strongly focus on ideology instead of the mainstream alternatives to those platforms having relatively monopolistic positions. Antitrust investigations make up a large portion of the Big Tech article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Tech#Market_dominance) and I would doubt there is no coverage about that which discusses those competitors listed here in a different light
• many platforms explicitly named as "alt-tech" go back to a single source (https://science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6508/1197). In particular including Discord and 4chan in the list seems very contestable to me, not only due to a lack of alternatives in the "mainstream" but because those position themselves way differently than the definition in the opening paragraph (lack of moderation, free speech focused, ...), with alt-right groups either being only a small portion of the platform or outright banned (as the case for Discord). In fact, I would argue 8chan if anything is the alt-tech to 4chan.
• the opening paragraph calls those platforms promoting "far-right" views when 3/4 cited sources clearly speak of "alt-right" and the very term itself is probably derived from it. In fact, the alt-right is not even mentioned once in the whole article.

I think it's also important to split up Parler and Gab to a separate section following recent events in regards to Twitter. --95.90.245.161 (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

"Big Tech" is a somewhat ill-defined term, and it's not our job to say who its biggest competitors are. The article already makes a distinction between dedicated "alt-tech" sites and "more ideologically neutral" platforms that are employed within what we might call that social scene. The distinction could be expanded upon, but it is present. XOR'easter (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Fair point. The claim of 4chan and Discord being alt-tech still seems badly sourced, and they slip through that definition by not really being the "alternatives" to anything (unless you count Reddit and messengers, respectively). I've been looking for additional sources for this claim or associating them with that term, but could not really find anything. However, I've found a recent WIRED article that names 8kun / 8chan as such and another by The Hill which emphasizes the movement from 4chan to 8chan / 8kun while naming the platform as "alt tech" which could be included to further source that claim. --95.90.245.161 (talk) 03:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

There are three sources supporting the claim that Discord is an alt-tech platform. 4chan does indeed only have one source, but it's a pretty strong one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

...weird, sorry. Not sure how I missed that regarding Discord. Completely disregard my argument regarding them. Regarding 4chan, I would disagree on the article being a strong source. The paragraph discussing 4chan as alt-tech (pg. 3) is relatively short and does even wrongly state what 4chan is (the website is not "dedicated to right-wing communities" but more similar to Discord in that respect), while other sources as linked above clearly differentiate the platform i.e. from 8chan / 8kun when discussing alt-tech platforms. Interestingly, the article also makes a direct comparison and link with "Big Tech" in the same section for the definition of alt-tech platforms, coming back to my point regarding that term needing inclusion.--95.90.245.161 (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion for the wording you'd like to see added, with respect to "big tech"? I'll poke around to see if there are any more sources that mention 4chan. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding 4chan, I just saw in the article's history that there already was a discussion regarding its intended purpose. Funnily enough, this had also been discussed on the 4chan Wikipedia page a year ago, and its origin and purpose should be well-sourced in the article, if that is helpful. For wording, I would suggest including this in one of the sections mentioning content moderation, as the article also discusses the topic in that very context. Maybe simply the beginning of the second paragraph to something like "Alt-tech social media platforms experienced an increase in popularity in the late 2010s into 2020 due to the deplatforming, shadow-banning, and content moderation by Big Tech platforms of some prominent people and organizations, as well as the perception among some in the political right that technology companies...", as it's using the Science article as a source anyway. Thank you a lot for the improvements! --95.90.245.161 (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

It's certainly not the most readable prose I've ever written, but I've added the term. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Any changes you wish to see to this article must be supported by reliable sources of your own. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm well aware. That's why I, again, propose changing "far-right" to "alt-right", as three of the four sources used for that article use that term literally in their title and it's clearly a far more prominent association based on that (1, 2). The sourced CNN article does not even use the term "far-right" anywhere in their article (3). This either needs to be changed to accurately reflect those sources, or the "far-right" claim needs better sourcing. --95.90.245.161 (talk) 03:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The alt-right is far right (though not everything far-right is alt-right). I was using the broader term, though I'll take another look at the sourcing to see if it's indeed so supportive of using the more specific term. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

As Alt-Right tends to be more associated with far-right online activities on social media, I think the term should at least find mention in the article regardless. I mean, the term "alt-tech" is probably derived from it and "Big Tech", at least it's what came to my mind immediately upon hearing that term for the first time today.--95.90.245.161 (talk) 03:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added alt-right to the lead, though I've left far right as well. I think the name is just short for "alternative technology". GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

This article needs to be completely rewritten as now it is virtually a propaganda piece Dek Vester (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, this piece seems far too much like propaganda based on opinion sources rather than original reporting. I've added some new citations to show that some of these alternative platforms are not free speech and actually remove anti-semeitism, harassment and racism. Platforms like 8kun, 4chan and Gab are extremely different than some of the other ones listed here, this is an important distinction which needs to be fixed. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Dek Vester and Canadianr0ckstar2000: The Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view requires that we represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Can you please explain whether a) you feel that there are other significant views published by reliable sources that present a different viewpoint that needs to be represented in this page, or b) the article does not represent the current sources that are being used? If a), please provide links to the reliable sources that you have found, ensuring they meet the policy on reliable sourcing. If you are unsure, WP:RSP contains a long list of commonly-suggested sources along with the general consensus among the Wikipedia editing community on whether or not they are considered reliable.

Canadianr0ckstar2000, I undid your edit because the sources you added made no mention of "alt-tech" whatsoever. We cannot synthesize sources about related topics to assume they are speaking generally about the phenomenon of alt tech. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare:, the Washingont Post and Buzzfeed News sources I added reference Rumble, which this page references as an alt-tech platform. Either Rumble needs to be removed, or you have to represent all the companies listed fairly. What do you suggest? Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare:, I just realized the article referencing Rumble has no mention of "alt-tech" specifically. I will just go ahead and remove Rumble from the listing and that will solve this. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I didn't realize your concern was based on the fact that Rumble was included here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Include alt-right tech companies?

At the moment, I think it's implied that our list of companies should only include companies where reliable sources explicitly call them "alt-tech". Do we want to expand the definition to include sources that call the company "alt-right"? That would allow us to add a couple more companies that are probably alt-tech, but that don't have any sources calling them alt-tech yet, such as Conservapedia, Metapedia, VK, and a couple of others. I am currently on the fence. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

No WP:OR. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

No. "Alt-tech" is not a synonym for "alt-right tech companies". GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Someone re-added Rumble to the list again. Its a single mention of Rumble without even calling Rumble alt-tech and goes into Bitchute. Based on above, I removed it from this list. Here's the citation. What do you think? Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 09:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

References

I'm going to copyedit the article.

This seems like a relatively contentious subject, and it has been getting a lot of edits recently, but there is some stuff which I think is confusingly written. Some stuff is just weird, like "Following the aftermath of", which seems to mean the same thing as "after". There are also phrases like "social media giants", which seems simultaneously too descriptive and not descriptive enough (is Google really a "social media company"?) and I am going to change a couple of those. The next issue, which I am sure will cause all kinds of ruckus, relates to what the article says, which I have not seen any talk page discussion about, but I assume someone probably has an opinion regarding. In the lead, for example, we have "Alt-tech is a group of websites [...]": referring to something as a "group" seems to me to imply some form of coordination among its members, whereas I don't see any sources claiming that, say, Discord or Telegram is acting in concert with "Goy Fund Me"(?). Another thing that seems strange to me is the article presuming you know what Parler is and how it's related to Donald Trump; I am going to add some explanation on that (although that may need additional sourcing which I currently cannot be bothered to find). I'm also not sure about the "alt-right" section heading; one of the sentences quotes a source and says that a few services are "dedicated to serving right-wing communities", another says that they are predominantly "far-right", and a third also says "far-right". Anyway, I figured I would make this section on the talk page because there's no way I was fitting all of that in an edit summary. Peace! jp×g 19:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@JPxG: Thanks for your hard work on this! I definitely agree the article could use a fresh set of eyes—that bizarre "following the aftermath of" phrase sounds suspiciously like something I would write.

Regarding your concerns with "group of websites", I definitely hear what you're saying. I think I came up with that wording in an attempt to avoid "refers to", which I see you've added in your edit. If you can think of a better term than "group of" we could perhaps avoid "refers to", but "refers to" may be better than misleading readers into thinking they are a coordinated group.

I have no objections to the rest of your edits, which all seem like an improvement to me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

MeWe and Rumble

It seems like there is an edit warring happening to try and include Rumble and MeWe as alt tech platforms. Althoughy citations certainly mention they have seen conservative increases because of the exodus, there really isn't any verifiable reporting on them being alt tech. The sources mention them more in passing, rather than a focus like they do on Gab, 4chan or Bitchute. I think for the sake of neutrality, we need to come to consensus on how to treat these two. They are far different than Gab, Parler, etc, they were both built as competition far before the political environment created alt tech and they have far stricter moderation and rules (they are not freespeech). What does everyone suggest? It is of my opinion that the citations do not qualify as verified reporting and should not be included, but if that is not consensus, I think its important to provide neutrality because I get the impression when reading the opening paragraph that alt-tech is for racists and white supremacists. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The sourcing is clearly there and you need to stop edit-warring and making inappropriate removals. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the sourcing for Rumble is adequate. However I agree with Canadianr0ckstar2000 that the cite for MeWe is not sufficient — it does not mention the term "alt-tech". We should not assume that every article that mentions alternatives to mainstream social networks is describing those platforms as "alt-tech". GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, but it appears the same source that describes Rumble as alt-tech also lists MeWe. I've swapped out the cite. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no reference in that article that says Rumble is alt-tech. Please specifically point out where it says that it is "alt-tech". It speaks to moderation, but not alt tech. It mentions Rumble in passing, but is not the story, not even close and does not measure up to the standard. Please show the text you are referring to that would describe Rumble as alt-tech Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The entire article is listing alt-tech platforms. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I think its very weak to be able to mention it once without any reporting behind it as this one article does, no other articles metion Rumble as alt-tech. Wikipedia makes clear the story needs to be more than a quick reference in passing to be verifiable and significant reporting. It seems like cherrypicking. In either case, I've documented my concern the best I can. On another note, how do we address neutrality now that we are listing platforms that do not allow any sort of white supremacy and racism? I don't think its fair to lump these companies in with Gab and Parler. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Another note, by this standard, we need to add Signal as well. They are also mentioned in the same article as Rumble, and with much more emphasis than Rumble. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've ensured all of the platforms listed in that article are listed here; it's not cherrypicking. Wikipedia needs more than a passing mention to ensure notability; but we're determining suitability for a list here, not suitability for a standalone article.

I disagree that including Rumble and MeWe in a list along with Gab and Parler is non-neutral; we do it over at List of social networking services too. As long as we're clear that not every alt-tech platform actively recruits alt-right userbases, which I think we are, I think it's alright. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Another note, by this standard, we need to add Signal as well. They are also mentioned in the same article as Rumble, and with much more emphasis than Rumble. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: regarding MeWe:

• https://www.popsugar.com/tech/what-is-mewe-47980405 "And as this divide is accelerating, alt-tech social networking platforms, like MeWe, are thriving."
• https://thehill.com/policy/technology/533919-fringe-social-networks-boosted-after-mob-attack describing MeWe as among "fringe social media networks"
• https://www.pcmag.com/news/how-mainstream-social-media-data-collection-compares-with-alt-tech-rivals describes MeWe as an "Alt-Tech rival" of mainstream sites, one of "the alt-tech startups that have popped up in recent years".

Seems pretty clear it should be considered alt-tech. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: I've added the PCMag source citation for the platforms it describes as alt-tech (and added Triller (app) based on it). I'm not sure PopSugar is a RS, and The Hill doesn't mention "alt-tech" except in a quote by Mark Zuckerberg. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: Thanks for this, that's definitely clear. I still think the Rumble source doesn't cut it, but if we are including Signal and all other ones referenced in the article, I'm fine with it. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for adding Signal. I agree with all your statements, but I probably didn't convey my concern properly. When reading the lead of alt-tech, it makes some very strong statements that don't apply to some these companies, specifically, that many platforms are freespeech and used as a cover for antisemetism. I think this presents the user with an immediate understanding that the assumption is that these platforms are 'bad' vs Facebook, Google, Twitter. I don't think that is fair to leave the user with that feeling, and I think the lead paragraph has to be more neutral and more a matter of fact that applies to all of these platforms. Then further in the article we can peel the onion. I hope this makes sense. Thoughts? Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The bulk of coverage about alt-tech networks is about how they are used for these purposes. If you have sourcing to support how Rumble or whoever differs from other alt-tech networks, we could certainly elaborate on that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Signal?

@Canadianr0ckstar2000: we're counting Signal as alt-tech now? Smh doesn't even mention it, so not sure why that was added as a source. I don't have access to Science (magazine), so someone else will have to verify that. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@MJL: Oops, that's on me. Bad copypaste, will fix. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Appreciated! However, I am not sure that the new source really supports the contention Signal is part of alt-tech. The Guardian currently said: It is not specifically marked by the influence of the far right, nor specifically marketed to them. To me, that means it isn't alt-tech. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Yah, I don't agree that Rumble or Signal should be on this list. The Gaurdian article just named everything that grew in the last 2 months, but they don't say Signal or Rumble is alt-tech. My 2 cents. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@MJL: Per this article (and its sources, of course), not all alt-tech platforms specifically market to the far-right nor intentionally attract them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: I've tried sitting on this for a few days, and this addition still doesn't feel right to me. According to Wired, In 2021, these ideas will resurface on "alt-tech" networks such as Gab, Telegram and 8kun, platforms that market themselves as being "anti-censorship" (read: unmoderated) and for "free speech" (read: hate speech welcome). That doesn't apply to Signal.
We're not going to be likely to find a source that specifically clears an app or platform of being alt-tech. Therefore, the best we can do in the meantime is ensure we have a carefully balanced inclusion criteria. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree. It doesn't really apply to Telegram either; I've read that many people use it as a secure communication tool regardless of their ideology. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

PC Magazine [1] specifically names Rumble as an alt-tech competitor to Youtube. They do not mention Signal. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Determining our own inclusion criteria seems to me like OR. We should include services in this article if sources have described them as alt-tech. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

So Signal is gone now? When the Guardian article has strong emphasis about them in their article? This really makes no sense to me anymore. Everything seems to be selective now. Here are a few citations referring to Signal in the same article as they speak about alt-tech/fringe

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/13/social-media-trump-ban-alt-tech-far-right

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/533919-fringe-social-networks-boosted-after-mob-attack

https://newscover.co.za/2021/01/15/the-rise-of-alt-tech-whatsapps-new-policy-opens-the-door-for-an-alternative-messaging-app/ Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree. @MJL: Why did you choose to remove it with objection on this page? And what do you mean by "I feel keeping Signal listed here can do more harm than good"? GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare, Canadianr0ckstar2000, Anachronist, and IHateAccounts: Honestly, we should just not do a list. It's a bad idea, and prose would be better. Anyone with me? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@MJL: The article originally was just prose (such a version), but some folks found the table more readable and I'm inclined to agree. I'm still not clear what your concern is here around Signal being listed, and now about there being a list at all. I don't think it makes sense to define alt-tech without mentioning which platforms fall into this grouping. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this, but I think the bigger issue thats creating confusion is that the Alt-Tech article reads that Signal and Rumble are platforms that support racism, anti-semetism, etc. Even @MJL: had that confusion, along with myself. I believe the meaning and spirit of the articles sourced are trying to say these companies are "altnernatives" and competitors, and I believe the alt-tech changes that spirit to mean something more nefarious. I think we should make the lead paragraph more neutral, imo. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Feel free to suggest a version that you think would be more neutral. However I will preemptively note that WP:NPOV requires we "represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic"; it does not mean we should remove mention of things like usage by the far-right from the lead when this has been a major component of the reporting about alt-tech. I am very open to suggestions on how the lead can be clearer, though. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@Canadianr0ckstar2000: Not sure Rumble and Signal can be compared. According to our article on Rumble, it is the host of a lot of right-wing video content. Signal's article does not reflect such a position. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@MJL: I am talking about being described as "Alt-tech", this isn't about being right wing. Signal is far more emphasized in the Guardian article about Alt Tech than Rumble is. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 02:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

"more mainstream offerings"

Regarding the first sentence, "more mainstream offerings" is so broad that every smaller service or new startup would be categorized as "alt-tech". Since sources do not treat the term this broadly, this is potentially misleading. For example, most of the hundreds of entries in Category:Social networking websites are alternatives to a mainstream offering, but almost none of them are described by sources as alt-tech.

Similarly, based on sources, "some have become popular" is ambiguous. Implying that some are not popular with extremists is confusing. Extremism is the single unifying reason these sites are being described as "alt-tech". Every source I've looked at mentions right-wing extremism in some way, most specifically mention the "alt-right" by name. The term itself is a parallel.

The Daily Telegraph article makes a distinction between sites which have been co-opted by the alt-right and "bespoke" alt-right websites. This seems like it might be useful for the lead, as it helps explain that these sites can be very different in scope, history, userbase, degree of extremism, etc.

Here is my very rough draft of rewrite:

Alt-tech is a group of websites, social media platforms, and Internet service providers that for various reasons have become popular among the alt-right, far-right, and others who espouse extreme and fringe viewpoints. Some alt-tech services have less stringent content moderation policies, which has attracted users who have been banned or restricted from more mainstream services, while some alt-tech services have been designed specifically to cater to extremist users. In the 2020s...

This would make the term, as used by sources, more clear from the outset. Again, this is a rough draft, but hopefully this demonstrates my concern. Grayfell (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I think I might be responsible for "more mainstream offerings"—it was an attempt to avoid a long list of Facebook, Twitter, etc. etc. I'm not a big fan of "for various reasons", which is impossibly vague, but otherwise I think your suggestion is workable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The phrase "for various reasons" can be removed without detracting from the proposed sentence. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense. By "various reasons", I meant the lax moderation and active catering described in the following sentences, but if this isn't clear, it should be left out. Grayfell (talk) 07:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I have made a slightly cleaner version of this change. I don't love it, but I do think it's a bit closer to sources. Revert if necessary, but I do think the lead should be clear that this term is overwhelmingly associated with the alt-right. Grayfell (talk) 08:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Discord, definition, and synth

This relates to several discussions above, but Discord seems like the clearest example.

I keep running into WP:SYNTH issues which make it hard for me to edit this article. The term "alt-tech", as I understand it from sources, is being used to as a very rough shorthand for sites used by the "alt-right". Since "alt-right" is nebulous, alt-tech must also be nebulous. There are now a lot of reliable sources on alt-right social media. Only a few of those sources use the phrase "alt-tech". Here's an example:

• Brown, Abram (June 30, 2020). "Discord Was Once The Alt-Right's Favorite Chat App. Now It's Gone Mainstream And Scored A New $3.5 Billion Valuation". Forbes (staff). Retrieved January 23, 2021.:

Wary of another Charlottesville, the Trust and Safety team specifically researches white nationalist groups and platforms online to find any new Discord servers that emerge. [...] Still, Discord is far from squeaky clean. It’s immensely easy to find offensive material even among the largest groups [...] Nonetheless, experts on digital hate speech generally agree that Discord has worked diligently to get its act together since 2017, and it is, largely, in no worse shape than its competitors. Those same experts also agree that this is a sad comment about the internet—and social media writ large. [Per an analyst at Data & Society], “Every platform is kind of the same: Every single platform has content moderation problems.”

Obviously this wasn't the end of the story, since Discord had to, again, ban users and remove forums following the Capitol riots. Per Mashable, "One has to wonder what took it so long."

So while sources list Discord as alt-tech, this seems like the kind of context that readers would like to know. Discord has made a significant effort to ban the specific content which lead to the "alt-tech" label. In this respect, Discord has been (justifiably) criticized for responses which have been too tepid or too late, but this is similar to Reddit or more mainstream sites like Twitter. Unfortunately, neither of these sources use the phrase "alt-tech", so I am not sure if or how to explain any of this. Grayfell (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a solid point and goes to the heart of my confusion around alt-tech. Lots of these companies are being called alternatives because writers are using the word "Alt-tech" to mean Alternative Technology to Twitter/Facebook/Google, but other writers are using it in the context of something more alt-right, extreme. This is a little bit of OR, but it seems obvious where the fringe go without any moderation (Gab, 4chan, 8kun) and then there are companies that are making efforts to block fringe like content (racism, anti-semetism, violence). I think this is a really important distinction and I agree, context needs to be provided. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 05:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I haven't seen any sources using it to just mean "alternative technology" in such a broad sense. Sources I have looked at use it to indicate extremism similar to the alt-right, or at the very least specifically because a site's users were banned from mainstream services for ostensibly political reasons. Extreme right-wing politics seems to be a significant part of the term. As I mention at #"more mainstream offerings", most of the hundreds of entries in Category:Social networking websites are alternatives to a mainstream offering, but they are not treated as "alt-tech" by reliable sources merely for that reason. The oldest source currently cited in the article is the Wired article from Sept. 2017. It defines 'alt-tech" this way: I was on Gab because, not long ago, I spent a week of my online life exclusively in the alt-right’s domain, a network of copycat sites collectively known as Alt-Tech. If this article is therefore alt-right technology, then sources about the alt-right's use of technology could be used even if they don't use the term "alt-tech". If, however, this article's scope is more narrow, it will still need to discuss far-right extremism, per most sources. Grayfell (talk) 08:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, this is tough, because the sources don't all firmly agree on what exactly alt-tech is. The strongest definitions I've found have been:

Second, in response to deplatforming, shadow banning, and content moderation by Big Tech, some right-wing actors have migrated to “alt-tech” equivalents that offer more permissive moderation. These include social media sites dedicated to right-wing communities, such as 4chan and 8chan, the Twitter alternatives Parler and Gab, and the YouTube alternative BitChute, as well as more ideologically neutral platforms such as Discord and Telegram (35). Although alt-tech platforms are much smaller than their mainstream counterparts, they allow partisan and fringe communities to exist without opposition from alternative viewpoints. Studies have demonstrated a high prevalence of hate speech on 4chan (43), Gab (44), and BitChute (45), which is typically moderated on more mainstream social platforms. These spaces allow more extreme viewpoints to thrive, whereas mainstream social media primarily host less extreme content designed to reach wider audiences.
— Freelon, Deen; Marwick, Alice; Kreiss, Daniel (September 4, 2020). "False equivalencies: Online activism from left to right". Science. 369 (6508): 1197–1201. doi:10.1126/science.abb2428. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 32883863.

The logic of alt-tech platforms is simple: they exist to provide a parallel online space for individuals, ideas, and causes that are outside the boundaries of speech permitted on mainstream social media platforms. Not all communities that have been deplatformed and found other ways to exist online should be considered alt-tech; Switter, for instance, is a Twitter alternative on Mastodon for sex workers who’ve been deplatformed due to anti-sex trafficking legislation FOSTA/SESTA. We use the alt-tech term to refer to platforms that offer a promise of uncensored speech, which exist specifically to give a space for far-right, nationalist, racist, or extremist points of view, and which harbor a broad sense of grievance that speech has been “censored” for failure to be “politically correct.” Many, but not all of these alt-tech sites are far-right communities: Kaitlin Tiffany documented an alt-tech community for Trans-exclusionary Radical Feminists who were thrown off Reddit during the same purge that eliminated r/The_Donald.
— Zuckerman, Ethan; Rajendra-Nicolucci, Chand (January 11, 2021). "Deplatforming Our Way to the Alt-Tech Ecosystem". Knight First Amendment Institute. Columbia University. Retrieved January 16, 2021.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

But you're right that some sources appear to be using broader definitions than this. It may be worth writing in the article some of what we are saying here—that the definitions of the term vary, and that some services described as "alt-tech" have welcomed extremists with open arms while some have made concerted efforts to remove such users from their platforms.

One thing I will say is that I don't think any of the sources have defined "alt-tech" as simply "alt-right technology", though some do seem to use it to refer to platforms that have become popular among the alt-right. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, lets add something like that. I think this is really important. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Logo

I'm not sure the addition of the Gab logo is a great idea, User:X-Editor. It doesn't add much, in my opinion, and seems to give undue prominence to Gab over the other sites. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: What would you suggest an image of? Maybe images of the logos of the most prominent alt-tech sites including gab? X-Editor (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think an image would add much to this article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Okay, I've deleted the image. X-Editor (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

don't use the passive voice

if something is criticized it has to be critized by someone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:9640:B661:C1CB:259F:583:3C20 (talk) 03:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The source does not specify:

More than a tool for communication, social media platforms are increasingly condemned for supporting the organization of a broad base of white supremacists. One key event, The Unite the Right Rally, held on August 2017 in Charlottesville, North Carolina, was organized by a broad coalition of white supremacists, many of whom were highly active online. This violent gathering led to the death of Heather Heyer and the injury of dozens of others. Much of the subsequent criticism lodged against social media companies concerned the failure to enforce their own ‘Terms of Service’ contracts in the lead up to the rally. Corporations such as Google (including Youtube), Twitter, Facebook, Cloudflare, GoDaddy, AirBnB, Uber, Paypal, Discord, Patreon, and others reacted by ‘no platforming’ (i.e. refusing services) known white supremacists account holders.

GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

WASP Love defunct?

This article marks WASP Love as defunct. Their site seems to be up, though their blog (?) and Twitter seem to have gone quiet around 2016-2017. That NYT citation on the article's chart says the journalist managed to successfully sign up for the website in 2020, so I assume it's still functional. Something happen since then, or should this be changed? --Chillabit (talk) 11:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the "defunct" label for that site. Some sites were marked as "defunct" without the addition of RS, which we probably ought to rectify. The nature of alt-tech sites means they tend to go offline occasionally, which does not always mean they are permanently defunct. It has happened to both Gab and Parler, for example, both of which are back online currently. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Rename article suggestion, unfair to non-extreme platforms

Far-right misinformation on mainstream social networks has been discussed widely in media. Such articles focus mostly on Facebook but also on Twitter and TikTok which have had QAnon conspiracy theories for example.

By comparison, the term "alt-tech" is not that common and is not used in many of the cited sources in this article. As mentioned a few times in the talk page archives, the article's name and scope is unfair to non-mainstream social networks by suggesting all alternatives would be far-right. This has been somewhat addressed with edits, for example the removal of Discord, but the title is misleading and WP:SYNTH remains.

In most sources alternative social networks do not have these connotations, they include WT.Social founded by Jimmy Wales himself as an alternative to Facebook.

The title is also misleading at the expense of environmentally-friendly alternative technology. This on top of the fact that "alt-tech" is just not a common term and is used as an offhand portmanteau in quotation marks most of the times it is used.

I would suggest moving the article to the descriptive names "Fringe right social networks", "Far right social networks" or something along those lines. Other suggestions are welcome.

Arguably, it's the same issue with the Wikipedia article for "intellectual dark web" ended up popularizing the phenomenon before it was even notable enough for Wikipedia. That movement was enough of a joke to start fizzling out already, but it appeared more "intellectual" because of that term, as others were citing Wikipedia. Rauisuchian (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Which sources don't mention alt-tech? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, it's only the article title and first few words I suggest modifying, as well as potentially some phrasing like "more mainstream services". A possible change to the first sentence could be "Far right social networks, sometimes called 'alt-tech', are a group..."

Sources that don't directly use the term "alt-tech" still have important information about these platforms such as their nature as propagandistic echo chambers, etc. Tons of articles (across media and not just the reference list here) have been written about the disruptiveness of these platforms, but only a few of them use the term "alt-tech". In the ref list most do, and the article is well-cited, but in a survey of the news articles on the topic, most this is not necessarily the term used.

Based on what I can see without journal access, several of the cited sources do not use the term "alt-tech". From skimming and find text, sources 9 (Houston Chronicle), 11 (Forward), 13 (Politico), 18 (Business Insider), 21 (The Independent), 27 (The Daily Beast), 33 (Business Insider) and perhaps a few others. The ones not listed do use the term "alt-tech". So yes, a lot of the sources do use the term. However, mostly in quotation marks. Others also say "alternative" in scare quotes preceded by conservative or right wing to emphasize the alternative part is only a claim. made by these platforms that maintain one viewpoint.

Nonetheless, a huge number of reliable source articles such as the New York Times, Vox, Guardian, etc. that mention Parler or Gab do not use the term "alt-tech", even in the last year. For example, comparing the number of Google results, the cited New York Times article is the sole article in the entire NY Times site that uses the term "alt tech", while there are many dozens or hundreds of articles about "Gab", "Parler", or about the far right on social media, written on the NY Times site overall.

You can repeat the same searches for many sources like The Guardian, and they'll only have one or two mentions of "alt-tech" on the whole site, but many more of specific platform's names, or of 'far right' or 'pro-Trump' social media platforms. All of those articles are worthy of citing, but it shows that "alt tech" is not the most common term that could be used as the main title. Rauisuchian (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

If that is the case, my thought would be that we need to bring the article back down to focus on alt-tech rather than broadening it. "Alt-tech" is the noteworthy term here; I don't think an article on "far right social networks" (which not all of these are) is really encyclopedic content. I don't have the time to look into the sourcing in depth this evening but I will try to go through it soon. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

That makes sense, narrower scope and more focused is better. At the same time, articles that do not directly state "alt-tech" but talk about the exact same concept, may have important information to include about extremists and misinformation on social media. Rauisuchian (talk) 23:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I sincerely think as a left leaning centrist, that this article beginning this way smacks of severe bias. Yes, some alt-tech sites are dominated by, or intended for, right leaning individuals, or people with extreme positions. However anti-authoritarianism is not in itself a winged position, and the degree to which such sites even focus on free speech varies a lot. At best, it's an extremely low resolution way to introduce the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.249.199.55 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of reliable sources agree with the descriptions of alt-tech given in the Wiki article. If you have any reliable sources that suggest otherwise, feel free to share some. X-Editor (talk) 21:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Ria's Bibliography

RiaVora (talk) 02:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Hey Ria,

Overall, the article is pretty good, providing insight to a topic that has not been explored yet on Wikipedia. In terms of some feedback on the article, I believe that the article is informative on what alt-tech is; however, I think that you should some more sections to alt-tech. For example, describe some potential ramifications of such websites of alt-tech on society. The article does maintain a good stance of neutrality and does not lean towards one side as in labeling whether or not alt tech is good or bad. The sources are overall pretty solid as most of the websites are well known; however some like Hope Not Hate researcher is an advocacy organization which thus presents a bias source. furthermore, radical right analysis seems like an unreliable news source as well. Kyle.chan201 (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey RiaVora and Kyle.chan201! So cool to see that this quick article I wrote up is a part of a school project, and I'm happy to help at all if you need anything – I actually was a "Campus Ambassador" for the WikiEd program years ago and so have some familiarity with the WikiEd programs, though I have no idea if Campus Ambassadors are even still a thing :)

Regarding Hope not Hate: you're quite right that Hope Not Hate is a biased sources, given that it's an advocacy organizations. However I did want to clarify that biased sources are usable, though we have to be careful. Generally I use in-text attribution with organizations like Hope Not Hate. For example, "According to the UK advocacy group Hope not Hate, ...". This provides context to the reader around the source's potential bias, but also allows us to include what is often valuable information. There is more information on the topic of biased sources available as a part of the reliable sourcing policy at WP:BIASEDSOURCE.

Regarding the Centre for Analysis of the Radical Right: I'm not sure that's a biased source. It's certainly not pro radical right, but it seems more like an academic effort than an advocacy one. It might be worth starting a discussion at WP:RSN to get input from others on whether it can be used as any other source or if it ought to be attributed in-text as with HnH. I've used the CARR as a source in another article I work on, Incel, and it looks like I do mention it in-text, but it's also accompanying a direct quote, so I don't think I included the name of the source for BIASEDSOURCE reasons.

One other note: the Gab source is also a bit iffy, given that they are themselves a part of the alt-tech ecosystem. However it could certainly be used in a similar way as the HnH source, or for quotes or something. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi GorillaWarfare, thank you for reaching out! It was really interesting to dive deeper into three alt-tech technologies, research them and search for unbiased sources, and combine the information together. Please let me know what you think of my current contribution to the article and any ideas / suggestions / changes you have! RiaVora (talk) 00:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@RiaVora: I just did a quick copyedit of the sections you added, and marked a few places where I think better sourcing is needed. However, I'm not really sure I see the value in adding a section with examples of alt-tech sites—many if not most of them have Wikipedia articles of their own, and it seems to duplicate a lot of information to add those here. I thought Kyle.chan201's suggestions of content to add was good, and it might make more sense to focus more on alt-tech as a whole than describe individual websites and platforms. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2020 and 2 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): RiaVora. Peer reviewers: Bryankjh, Jeshgus, Kyle.chan201, Go23bears, VillusionV, Sid900.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Possible Additions

Would conservapedia count? Would other non-mainstream, but somewhat left wing sites also count like rational wiki? Encyclopedia dramtica and uncyclopedia could also count too, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.201.184.88 (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Any sources for such an addition? Dajasj (talk) 13:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Article Neutrality

The term alt-tech seems extremely loosely defined and I tried to reflect that with some edits just now.

The definition seems to go from clearly politically positioned platforms that are alt-right or far-right oriented alternatives to some mainstream platform, to platforms which host do host alt-right groups but are not directly comparable to any mainstream platform, to platforms which are the mainstream platform of their niche. As someone unfamiliar with these platforms I would understand the definition of the article, i.e. these platforms being alternatives to something, as all of them being like Gab is to Twitter when it's pretty much indisputable something like Discord really doesn't fit that definition at all (alternative to what?).

I also removed the "Freedom Phone" paragraph. None of the sources uses the term "Alt-Tech". Not everything that has something to do with Trump and technology is "alt-tech", the term is mostly associated with social media platforms.

Lastly, the section about Discord being an "alt-right" platform made no sense. The Science article sourced is from 2020, the Forbes article discusses actions to remove alt-right groups that took place three years earlier. On top of the article beginning by discussing BLM groups on the platform. It feels like whoever wrote that paragraph read the headline of the Forbes article and nothing else.--95.91.247.87 (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Black Kite Why were my edits reverted without any comment? --95.91.247.87 (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Obviously, I'm not Black Kite. I recommend that you use edit summaries, especially when removing content. Unexplained content removal is frequently vandalism, which is often reverted without comment. Firefangledfeathers 05:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I mean, that's why I commented on this Talk page. I just added my changes to the lede again with appropriate summary.--95.91.247.87 (talk) 07:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

The definition seems to go from clearly politically positioned platforms that are alt-right or far-right oriented alternatives to some mainstream platform, to platforms which host do host alt-right groups but are not directly comparable to any mainstream platform... any platform that hosts fringe content that would be booted off all manistream sites for violation of terms of service, is by definition a fringe platform. Those two definitions are literally the same thing, whether you like it or not. 46.97.170.225 (talk) 10:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Some of these platforms are clearly not an "alternative" as they literally are the mainstream player, Discord being the best example - which only once source even throws in the alt-tech bucket. A good argument could be made for Signal too, considering the source for it quite explicitly mentions it's not being promoted by the alt-right, just that it exists. These honestly still are pretty silly inclusion considering even Facebook was under criticism for hosting e.g. the Christchurch shooting. The article is simply badly composed by someone who didn't bother looking at their sources beyond headlines and some key terms. Also the article never defines alt-tech as "fringe platforms", not even before my edits, so I have no idea what you're even trying to infer.--95.91.212.65 (talk) 23:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Signal

The only source in the article for Signal being considered alt-tech is this Guardian article:

″Another popular download in recent days has been Signal, an encrypted messaging application with a broad range of users. It offers the ability to send encrypted text messages and make encrypted voice calls, whether one-to-one or in groups. It is not specifically marked by the influence of the far right, nor specifically marketed to them.″

This whole paragraph honestly seems a bit out of place within the Guardian article. Also compare especially to what it says about Telegram two paragraphs later. Unless there is another source associating the platform as alt-tech, I'd suggest removing Signal as an alt-tech platform from the article.--95.91.212.65 (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I removed it. The citation is based on observation of Signal getting used by the alt-right is a secure messaging platform, rather than Signal marketing to them. atoponce (talk) 16:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

biased language

This article isn't written in a non partisan manner and uses loaded language and prejudiced to control the narrative away from free speech and onto promoting racism, which is obviously not the goal. Needs a full

Promotion of free speech by a platform isn't inherently a bad thing, unlike the implications in this articles wording. 24.207.30.90 (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

We say what reliable sources say. Do you have any or are you just getting out the WP:SOAPBOX? Dronebogus (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Confusing verbose definition?

As a reader, I'm not yet sure if Alt-Tech describes websites lenient in their content moderation or specifically platforming extreme content.

This is because the basic description spans roughly above 3 full-page lines long, and describes the equivalent of 4 key concepts.

It may have been rushed or copied from a source over-zealously (don't we sometimes lol?)

What I gather from the article is: Alt-Tech are social media platforms that host extreme or fringe content, and are often associated with Alt-Right or Far-Right movements.

That would be most concise and yet apt? :) Consonol (talk) 10:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

List of Alt-Tech Platforms

Does the list of platforms in its current form really add much? Almost half of the listed platforms are defunct or their notability seems to stem from a single reference, as they either don't have an article at all or just a short mention in some other article. With some others it seems questionable why they are included in the list when other platforms are not. Telegram is probably the most notable alt-tech platform (here's WaPo pretty much calling them the poster child of alt-tech) and not in the list. Meanwhile Kiwi Farms doesn't seem to fit in with the other platforms at all, with it not really being an alternative to something and the Forward.com source being the only one to even label them as alt-tech. 95.90.232.115 (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the Kiwi Farms addition is odd, and seems inadequately sourced. I'll look into adding Telegram. I don't think the solution to odd entries in the list is to remove the list, rather we should just fix it. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Why restricted to the far Right?

Why is the restricted to the alt-right and far right? It seems to me that there are plenty of these on the fringe Left as well. https://occupydemocrats.com, as just one example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:8e80:30df:29b0:9800:9f73:1107 (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

• • If reliable sources don’t say it’s alt-tech then it’s not. Also please sign your posts with four ~ Dronebogus (talk) 21:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources are unreliable on this topic, this is nothing but an appeal to authority fallacy. I understand there is no interest in addressing these edge cases, but at the very least acknowledge that it is an edge case. 103.217.166.146 (talk) 02:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

The concept of reliable sourcing is fundamental to Wikipedia; it is not useful to debate one of this project's five pillars as though we might just toss it out. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:41, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Mastodon

Mastodon is not mentioned it seems to be used as a alternative to Twitter and other websites Qwv (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. There are some recent sources naming Mastodon alt-tech [2] [3] [4]. All of those also point out that Mastodon is not right-wing, but still use the term and draw a line between alt-tech catering to the right and other platforms. 2003:CD:EF2E:3000:292A:F0B1:A08F:A8F6 (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, at this point it's Twitter that's the alt-tech site. Musk made it pretty much indistinguishable from Gettr, Truth Social, etc. — Red XIV ^(talk) 03:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Mastodon is already mentioned in this article, and has been since at least March 2022. Grayfell (talk) 04:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

It's mentioned in a source code dispute with Truth Social, not anywhere else in the article. 2003:CD:EF2E:3000:F481:51F1:7BDE:A790 (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Discord

The source listed for Discord being Alt-tech lists this report as its source for that claim. This doesn't actually include any mention of discord and instead focuses on Telegram. Considering this and Discord's work on removing alt-right content I don't believe it should be included on this list. I'm removing it for now, until a better source can be found. KnifePie (talk) 07:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

"Cover for terrorism"

I just tried to remove that ridiculous last part of the lead that alt-tech platforms "cover terrorism" and got reverted by @MrOllie. So I guess this has to be brought up here.

There is currently eight (!) sources cited for that single last sentence, which in itself is already pretty bad for a lead. Let's go through them one by one:

• CNN Money article: no claim of alt-tech covering for terrorism
• Fair Observer article: no claim of alt-tech covering for terrorism
• Houston Chronicle: no claim of alt-tech covering for terrorism
• ADL: no claim of alt-tech covering for terrorism
• Forward: no claim of alt-tech covering for terrorism
• Article by Zannettou et al: no claim of alt-tech covering for terrorism
• Politico article: the point of the article is frustration that the material promoted is legally not classified as terrorism, in contrast to activities e.g. by ISIS. In addition, it is about Gab specifically. This can be added in the body somewhere, but really doesn't belong in the lead to support such a strong, generalizing statement
• Article by Ebner, Kavanagh and Whitehouse: conducts a study to show that QAnon language is linguistically similar to terrorist manifestos. They do not imply anything about Discord and Telegram, the two platforms they analyzed, themselves covering for terrorism. In fact, their conclusion has a similar argument to the Politico article, as in that the definition of terrorism should be extended following their results. Whether Discord should be even labelled alt-tech has also been discussed before, so it makes even less sense to generalize from an article explicitly analyzing that very platform to all alt-tech platforms.

So unless someone wants to seriously discuss that Discord specifically covers up for terrorism, I would suggest to remove that part from the lead. 2003:CD:EF1C:6400:C870:54B7:62EC:94D1 (talk) 03:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Some of these are stronger for this specific claim than others (the Fair Observer one does appear to support this more directly) but this argument still misses the picture anyway. The lead is a summary of the body. The body explains that these sites often self-describe as free speech extremists or anti-censorship activists or similar, and use this thin ideology as a justification for lax moderation and monetization policies to profit from this content. The body also explains how these sites have facilitated and promoted acts of terrorism, including specific examples such as the Unite the Right rally, the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, the January 6 United States Capitol attack, etc. As a summary of the body of the article, if anything, this seems on the tame side. Grayfell (talk) 06:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe my argument was not clear. "Cover for terrorism" implies deceitful intent by the platform, and this is an article about alt-tech as a whole and not specific platforms. The only sources which imply such intent specifically discuss Gab (social network) in the context of the Pittsburgh shooting. The only mention in the article on anything terrorism aside from that specific event (no, the January 6 attack cannot be generally considered terrorism, see that article's RfC on the matter) is the aforementioned QAnon article, which does not imply compliance of Discord or Telegram in such actions. (That aside from the fact Discord now has been removed twice from the article for not really being alt-tech.) 2003:CD:EF1C:6400:B964:A56E:9C56:2227 (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

An RFC which ends in "no consensus" is hardly definitive, and reliable sources remain completely free to describe Jan 6 as terrorism, which they do, for very obvious reasons. Per many sources, alt-tech platforms are hosting content from terrorist organizations (such as the Proud Boys and others) and then using 'free speech' as a justification for this, although enforcement of these 'free speech' policies is uneven, to put it mildly. Some of them, such as Rumble, have used technical tricks to make such content less obvious to some users. Rumble, for example, has done this by suppressing only some extremist-related search terms, but not others. If this seems deceitful, that's not a problem Wikipedia can solve, that's just a neutral description of their behavior. Grayfell (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Association of "free speech" and "individual liberty" with extremists

"Alt-tech platforms describe themselves as protectors of free speech and individual liberty, which researchers and journalists have alleged may be a cover for antisemitism and terrorism." Associating free speech and individual liberty as extremist views? What is the specific point trying to be made here, and is it just an unfounded extrapolation from vague text? 47.132.127.113 (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The point is exactly what the text says. What they claim to support (free speech) and what they actually cater to (antisemitism and calls to violence) are not the same thing. MrOllie (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@MrOllie where is the proof that they support antisemitism, because it's in none of those sources? 47.132.127.113 (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

No, it is in fact in the sources. MrOllie (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Bias within the "Research" section

Considering this articles initial claims of antisemitism and the extremist nature of "alt-tech," the "research" cited within that section is that of minorities, 1 black author, and 3 Jews. Clear bias. This indicates the purpose of this article as a whole is to paint "alt-tech," which in reality is just tech not sponsored by major corporations, negatively. Not all "alt-tech" is just white people creating a platform for themselves. The article as a whole does an extremely poor job of defining and explaining "alt-tech". 47.132.127.113 (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Wow. No, we're not going to rule out scholarship written by minorities. MrOllie (talk) 21:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@MrOllie that's not my point. They've created an article that labels "alt-tech" as extremists and antisemitic, then only included research material from predominately Jewish sources. How is that not bias? 47.132.127.113 (talk) 21:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

1) You've got it backward. The stuff that caters to extremists and antisemities is defined as alt-tech, they didn't label a bunch of services out of nowhere and 2) If "alt-tech" isn't actually antisemitic as you seem to be suggesting, why would Jewish academics be biased? MrOllie (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@MrOllie what you said makes no sense. "If alt-tech isn't actually antisemitic... why would Jewish academics be biased."? What is the logic in that statement? 47.132.127.113 (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

It's pretty simple. If alt-tech wasn't full of antisemitism, Jewish academics as a group would have no special reason to be biased against it. Well, almost everybody is biased against it, but you get the idea. MrOllie (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The race or religion of a researcher is not an inherent source of bias, nor are biased sources inherently unusable. Feel free to suggest additional reliable sources if you believe viewpoints are being left out or overstated. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare when the focus point of the article is "alt-tech" is antisemitic extremists, and the research for that comes from predominately Jewish sources, it seems important. 47.132.127.113 (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Putting aside the absurdity of all this, these are not even "Jewish sources". Anyway, like I already said, if you think additional sources need to be incorporated, you're more than welcome to suggest some. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare exactly. That's all I'm saying. Incorporate more sources that don't make it seem like an obviously bias concept. 47.132.127.113 (talk) 22:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/11/technology/alt-right-internet.html from back in 2017, he's a quaker. Might have even coined the term. I'm going down a Google rabbit hole. I can't read the entire article though, paywall. 47.132.127.113 (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

This source is already used extensively in this article. Citation #3. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare not going to lie. In looking into the origin of this term, at least from a news/media perspective, the earliest I've found of its mentioning so far is from an Israeli news outlet in 2017. 47.132.127.113 (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I'm meant to draw from that. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Who coined, "alt-tech"?

Does anyone know who coined, "alt-tech"? Usually there's some sort of origin story of when it was first used and so on. 47.132.127.113 (talk) 22:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@47.132.127.113 I got 2017 as the earliest mentioning in news articles. CNET, NY Times... 47.132.127.113 (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@47.132.127.113 https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/2017-12-01/ty-article/.premium/what-is-goyfundme-the-alt-rights-new-fundraising-tool-explained/0000017f-f687-d318-afff-f7e752e50000

Mentioned Dec 1, 2017, in an Israeli news outlet. 47.132.127.113 (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@47.132.127.113 https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/2017-09-25/ty-article/.premium/the-alt-right-looks-to-become-a-leaner-meaner-white-nationalist-power/0000017f-e175-d804-ad7f-f1ff1e440000 ... and again... interesting. 47.132.127.113 (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@47.132.127.113 so far, in terms of order of appearance, with regard to "alt-tech" being some sort of far right extremist concept, Dec. 1 2017, Haaretz, CNET, Dec 4, NY Times Dec 11. 47.132.127.113 (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

You've missed some in this article itself, including Wired (Sep 27, 2017). I'm not quite sure what the point of this is, though. If you want to add to the article who supposedly coined the term, we'd need a reliable source making that explicit claim — not WP:OR based on the oldest sources you're able to find. If you're not trying to add anything to the article, this is off-topic for this page. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare we can go back even further! Back to Kevin Roose in NY Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/09/business/alt-right-silicon-valley-google-memo.html

August 2017. I'm Googling my hardest. 47.132.127.113 (talk) 23:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, why are we doing this? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@47.132.127.113 "Alt-tech" is similar to "alt-right" or "alt-anything", there's got to be an origin story. These things just don't pop up out of thin air. I think it would add value to the article knowing when it was first used. To give it some context. I wouldn't have thought, for example, that it was even used before 2020 (basically when mainstream tech started banning people for whatever reasons). 47.132.127.113 (talk) 23:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:No original research this is all unusuable. If you want to add information about history, you need a source that comments on history directly, you cannot gin it up yourself by trying to find early mentions. MrOllie (talk) 23:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)