Unfortunately, I think it’s highly unlikely. If this happens, I’m 90% certain that it’s because a user who is directly affected submits a pull request.

EPISTEMIC STATUS: I’m mad about this. If I was in a more neutral state of mind, this screed would be ~15% more charitable & nuanced.

Manifold employees rarely implement changes to meet the needs of a minority of active users unless it’s something that they or several top users personally want. This happens even when it demonstrably alienates valuable users or swaths of the target audience.

Some examples:

@oh

1. Any user can privately send messages to any other user. There is no ability to block all unsolicited messages, and no spam filters. I have received things like “kill yourself” after expressing opinions about the Israeli government.

2. User data is regularly made publicly discoverable without obtaining users’ permission. Fixes are only pushed after the issue receives enough attention, by which point the data has been downloaded. Exposing addresses disproportionately affects queer users, who have been threatened with being outed or physically attacked.

3. The website design is not compliant with ADA requirements, which US courts have ruled applies to websites owned by businesses, as per Title III. Images lack alt text, text fields are low in contrast or too small, and red and green are used to distinguish between essential page elements (with no alternative settings).

4. It impossible for a user to remove their name from the site, even after changing their name or username, or deleting their account. Again, this disproportionately affects queer users.

5. User-generated content is seldom deleted. Requests for individual comments or markets to be hidden requires manual review, and are rarely fulfilled. Even though hateful and discriminatory speech is prohibited in the community guidelines, these terms are defined extremely narrowly. Thinly-veiled bigotry is permitted in the name of free speech, signaling that certain groups are not welcome on this site. Obvious slurs are not automatically hidden.

6. Content created in non-English languages is often treated as spam.

7. The majority of administrators and moderators are men. Users who appear to be women receive less praise and more criticism in public discussions. Site culture rewards stereotypically masculine behaviors over stereotypically feminine ones. No official attempts are made to change that.

8. Concerns about these issues receive knee-jerk reactions like: “I don’t experience that, so it doesn’t exist,” “It’s not my problem that you’re offended,” “Stop censoring speech you don’t like,” “Well, technically it’s not discrimination,” “No one’s forcing you to use this site,” “If we do what you’re requesting, it’ll alienate conservatives,” “You’re making bad-faith accusations,” “I’m not racist, so it’s impossible for my actions to be racist,” “That’s a subjective perspective,” and “Your request is reasonable, but listening would set a dangerous precedent.”

@oh Each of these issues have been raised through official channels and little progress has been made. It belies a fundamental disregard for the needs of anyone who does not conform to the team’s “default” model of a typical user. Some of this neglect is strategic prioritization, some of it is apathy and lack of empathy, and some of it is outright hostility to the idea that building a popular platform requires even the most minimal of gestures towards inclusivity.