3 ms·

My suspicion is that any broadly successful community aggregator will have enough people holding belligerent, incompatible views, that one could never feel trul

My suspicion is that any broadly successful community aggregator will have enough people holding belligerent, incompatible views, that one could never feel truly safe participating there. Your loathing (for lack of a better term) of the discourse on Reddit has me wondering if the differences I perceive between our political and cultural tolerance stems from being on opposite sides of a few gnostic / agnostic boundaries, or if the difference between our demographic pigeon holes has spared me orders of magnitude of relative grief, allowing me the additional advantage of getting less overwhelmed by ambient asshattery. I will readily admit that the latter could easily lead to the former; I guess I wonder if the 2 —> 1 causal order holds overwhelmingly in practice, and how to satisfactorily determine that in a way that manages to be honest, systematic, and compassionate.

esyir 5y ago
>My suspicion is that any broadly successful community aggregator will have enough people holding belligerent, incompatible views, that one could never feel truly safe participating there. I'm of the opinion that this is fine. Rather, the better approach here might be instead gatekeeping and exclusivity. Now, before you tear my head off for that, let me elaborate a bit. Much of the issues of existing communities, seem to me to stem from an inability to deal with scale. A single heretic isn't a problem, but when the heretics outnumber the believers, they can then proceed to dominate the community. One potential solution I've wondered about is entry-restrictions and finer grained restrictions on permissions for a community. For instance, a community might be public view but member-only for posts/comments, with invite-only membership. Or perhaps memberships have to be approved by N randomly selected members. The catch of course, is that what I propose is also yet another contributor to the death of the open internet, much like discord is doing.

esyir 5y ago

>My suspicion is that any broadly successful community aggregator will have enough people holding belligerent, incompatible views, that one could never feel truly safe participating there. I'm of the opinion that this is fine. Rather, the better approach here might be instead gatekeeping and exclusivity. Now, before you tear my head off for that, let me elaborate a bit. Much of the issues of existing communities, seem to me to stem from an inability to deal with scale. A single heretic isn't a problem, but when the heretics outnumber the believers, they can then proceed to dominate the community. One potential solution I've wondered about is entry-restrictions and finer grained restrictions on permissions for a community. For instance, a community might be public view but member-only for posts/comments, with invite-only membership. Or perhaps memberships have to be approved by N randomly selected members. The catch of course, is that what I propose is also yet another contributor to the death of the open internet, much like discord is doing.