Slido presents itself as a platform for safe, inclusive audience engagement — a place where anyone can ask questions without fear or interruption. In theory, this is commendable. In practice, however, I’ve found this promise to be an illusion.
At a recent New Scientist event, more than 200 questions were submitted through Slido. Yet during the Q&A, only a handful were selected — and not by the speakers or audience, but by a moderator who filtered them through their own lens. This introduces a disturbing form of gatekeeping: valid questions may be dismissed for being too challenging, off-narrative, or simply misunderstood by the moderator.
This raises troubling questions:
-
Who decides what gets asked?
-
On what criteria?
-
What are we losing when questions are pre-screened rather than asked live?
This isn’t just about a single event — it's about a cultural shift. What happened to courage, audience participation, and good old-fashioned debate? When tech intermediates dialogue, do we risk sanitizing it to the point where it no longer serves its purpose?
I’d love to hear others' thoughts. Have you had similar experiences? Is there a better way to preserve genuine, in-the-moment exchange while still protecting speakers and attendees?
Let’s talk — openly.
