3 ms·

Can a building host a party so toxic that the building itself is socially irreparable? We have a different obligation to software than we do to physical things

Can a building host a party so toxic that the building itself is socially irreparable? We have a different obligation to software than we do to physical things; digital hangouts are after all just a computer program. What makes a thing popular seems to be a product of the number of people present crossed by the social weight of the people present. We might say that a party becomes uncool once a certain class of people has joined, or is uncool once a certain class of people have left. The article says that the people on Tumblr are often horrible to each other and that it ruins Tumblr; we can burn that digital building down but it will just be rebuilt, with the same swelling of cool people coming and going, and undesirables lingering, in a cycle that cannot be broken. I think that social media must necessarily follow the forest fire model, with lots of expected, regular burnings-down to allow for regrowth.

stcredzero 8y ago
We might say that a party becomes uncool once a certain class of people has joined, or is uncool once a certain class of people have left. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZQG9cwKbct2LtmL3p/evaporative-cooling-of-group-beliefs https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZQG9cwKbct2LtmL3p/evaporativ...
temp-dude-87844 8y ago
This already happens. Sites that vest their entire survival in user-generated content take a big risk, because the brand will become associated in people's minds (though personal experience or hearsay) with the behavior of particular elements in the community. While people will have different experiences, some good, some bad, the reputation of the site will keep some away. Platforms that host communities that are editorially distinct -- like Discord, Reddit, even 4chan -- insulate some of the mayhem that radiates out of one channel from completely spoiling others. Tumblr (and Twitter) have no such mechanism, they don't have "Channels" or "Groups", all content is propagated through follows, reblogs, and un-namespaced public tags. Communities exist solely in the minds of their participants, but are not enforced or enabled by any platform feature, and thus are both trivially infiltrated, and offer no protection from the goings-on of the wider ecosystem. The only way to seek refuge from this to leave the platform altogether.
michaelt 8y ago
I think that social media must necessarily follow the forest fire model, I think that's partly a function of how the business is financed. Most social media sites can't do a good job about harassment because anyone banned or blocked can trivially open a new account. And the sites feel they _have_ to make it trivially easy to open an account, because user growth is king if you want funding. A site where you could only create an account with a $5 donation and an original 300-word essay on how you'd contribute positively to the community would be much less likely to be raided by griefers.

stcredzero 8y ago

We might say that a party becomes uncool once a certain class of people has joined, or is uncool once a certain class of people have left. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZQG9cwKbct2LtmL3p/evaporative-cooling-of-group-beliefs https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZQG9cwKbct2LtmL3p/evaporativ...

temp-dude-87844 8y ago

This already happens. Sites that vest their entire survival in user-generated content take a big risk, because the brand will become associated in people's minds (though personal experience or hearsay) with the behavior of particular elements in the community. While people will have different experiences, some good, some bad, the reputation of the site will keep some away. Platforms that host communities that are editorially distinct -- like Discord, Reddit, even 4chan -- insulate some of the mayhem that radiates out of one channel from completely spoiling others. Tumblr (and Twitter) have no such mechanism, they don't have "Channels" or "Groups", all content is propagated through follows, reblogs, and un-namespaced public tags. Communities exist solely in the minds of their participants, but are not enforced or enabled by any platform feature, and thus are both trivially infiltrated, and offer no protection from the goings-on of the wider ecosystem. The only way to seek refuge from this to leave the platform altogether.

michaelt 8y ago

I think that social media must necessarily follow the forest fire model, I think that's partly a function of how the business is financed. Most social media sites can't do a good job about harassment because anyone banned or blocked can trivially open a new account. And the sites feel they _have_ to make it trivially easy to open an account, because user growth is king if you want funding. A site where you could only create an account with a $5 donation and an original 300-word essay on how you'd contribute positively to the community would be much less likely to be raided by griefers.