Why Vocal's Community Guidelines Should Evolve

The advent of Vocal is a fascinating phenomena. It is truly an amalgamation between expert and elite digital marketing, and authentic artistic expression. If you haven't yet, please read Vocal's Community Guidelines. https://vocal.media/resources/community-guidelines

When one reads through the community guidelines of Vocal it is like one is taking a deep breath of fresh air. It is abundantly clear that the leaders of the platform are committed to keep us users safe from exploitations of many kinds. The section, "Asserting of Personal Beliefs" is no exception. Here is that part of the guideline word-for-word:

"Vocal strives to be a platform for voices across political, religious, and ideological spectrums. That being said, religion and politics can be touchy subjects, and can result in alienation or offense in a way that’s become all too apparent on the internet over the past few years. We want to keep Vocal a happy, safe place for everyone—that’s why we don’t accept any content that takes a religious stance of any kind, or stories that make assertions about any political, racial, national, or ideological group."

I am going to write both my affirmations and challenges toward the wording, and administration of this guideline. In the end, I hypothesize that I will have made a decent argument that this guideline will need to evolve in some way.

Affirmations

"Vocal strives to be a platform for voices across political, religious, and ideological spectrums"

Let's give it up for Vocal! Truly, in our world, we are constantly coming into contact with institutions and platforms that consciously or unconsciously discriminate and violate diverse and distinct voices. We all desire to be in communities where each and every voice has the same opportunity to be heard. And further, we even seek to provide opportunities for those who have historically been "absent from the table", so to speak. Therefore, this aspect of Vocal's "heart" is spot on, and it is easy and plain for all to see that this direction is for the betterment of our lives.

"... alienation or offense in a way that’s become all too apparent on the internet over the past few years."

I have felt alienated and offended from the way people communicate on the web over the course of my life. I applaud Vocal for setting out to name this reality. And attempting to create a digital community where this sort of practice is not tolerated and unacceptable.

Challenges

"religion and politics can be touchy subjects, and can result in..."

This is the first half of the sentence from the last quote in the "affirmations" section above. Vocal is articulating that Religion and Politics "can be" touchy, and they "can" result in alienation or offense. My push back is that Religion and Politics indeed can lead to alienation and offense (and to be generous, they have done it quite a lot!) but any historian, sociologist, political scientist, and religious scholar worthy of the name (including myself) would provide a resounding verdict that Religion and Politics need not lead to alienation or offense. In fact, those same experts would again give a resounding "Yes." to the capacity of politics and religion to provide inexpressible meaning, depth, and color for many peoples' lives. It is clear that just because a topic may have the capacity to offend and alienate, it does not mean that it ought to regulated under a zero-tolerance policy.

"We want to keep Vocal a happy, safe place for everyone—that’s why we don’t accept any content that takes a religious stance of any kind, or stories that make assertions about any political, racial, national, or ideological group."

For me, this is probably the most problematic statement in this section of Vocal's community guidelines. First off, many of our lives are not a happy and safe place. For some, this is unavoidable. For others, they are healing from a lingering past. And still for others, the numbers show that they will soon be confronted with a traumatic experience. For many, artistic expression is a deeply healing practice. And for many, their religious beliefs are inseparable from an authentic articulation of their healing process.

Secondly, the statement "religious stance of any kind" is problematic because of ones definition of "religion". Truly, in order to define religion we would need to consult anthropologists, religious scholars and a host of other experts to get an ever increasing awareness of the nuanced reality of human religion. However, what this often means in the minds of most people is "god talk". As long as a pre-determined list of words are not used (Jesus, Mohammed, Moses, Bible, Qu'ron, Hindi, Buddah, Vedas, GOD etc.) are not used, then it is not religious. Not so! Things can be extremely religious, even though not explicitly so. Often our surface-level non-theistic stories carry substantial theological and anthropological undertones.

Finally, toward the administrative side of things. If someone is writing a story, and a character says, "I believe the Qu'ron is true." or, "I believe God is real!" Is this an instance of a "religious stance"? Or is it a moment of a character within a story making a claim? This is another tricky area that Vocal needs to navigate. Also, is there a team of people who make decisions concerning religious stances? Or is it an individual who is moderating the page? Individuals have a lot of room for interpretation. For some, a comment that is really intended to be a religious stance might not be interpreted as such, and will get published. And for another moderator, a non-religious comment could be taken as a firm religious stance that needs to be rejected. This policy stamped with motifs of zero-tolerance, combined with authentic artistic expression, and the interpretation of moderators synthesizes variables that can be problematic in consistency and fairness of expression for Vocal users.

Evolving Guidelines

How might Vocal change their guidelines to maintain their outstanding commitment to a safe and global presentation of diverse voices; while also moving towards a more authentic acceptance of the political, ideological, and religious nature of humanity? Well, if I worked for Vocal, that is what I would do. So hire me. Just kidding.

What if it said something like, "Religion and politics can be touchy subjects, and they can cause alienation and offense. Yet, the spiritual, ideological, and political aspect of humanity is unavoidably important for artists around the world. Therefore, such content is welcome as long as it is in a mode of teaching, and not indoctrination. Teaching seeks to impart information, stories, and experiences. Indoctrination seeks to control narratives, and demonize difference. We all can be served by learning from each other's distinct religious, ideological, and political beliefs. But we will not be served if we all agree not to talk about it. All material, whether ideologically sectarian or not, will go through a hate-speech review to ensure that people's diverse beliefs are necessarily Vocalized, yet not inherently alienating or offensive."

It is a mistake to assume that Religion and Politics are avoidable realities amidst our globalizing and inter-connected worlds. To remove authentic, explicit, and artistic articulations of peoples' convictions would go against the very vision of Vocal to create a "Network of engaged readers and dedicated creators, fostering one another’s creativity and fueling one another’s passions."

With hope towards an evolving future where our authentic and whole selves have the autonomy to communicate our whole experience, together.