What it boils down to, is that if you create a community, then there will be people there that you do not like. This is not a new problem with software. It hap

What it boils down to, is that if you create a community, then there will be people there that you do not like. This is not a new problem with software. It happens even in person. If you have public meetings in a cafe or a library, with your small group of friends, they will want to invite others. Or somebody might come over to you and start talking. Groups are always full of people you won't 100% agree with, or who will "dillute" the thing that you think you love about the group. And people leave groups, too. Or they change. Twitter, on the other hand, is not really social software. It's not groups. Instead of people going to the cafe to meet - and, god forbid, having to deal with their friends' friends habits, or strangers - it's as if everyone has their own cafe, where only they can speak, all the time. And sometimes, like ships bumping in the night, those cafe-bubbles overlap. Which is why Twitter is great for a lot of things, but not building the kind of community that Scoble is lamenting. Because to form that deep type of connection, you REQUIRE "off-topic" chat, and adjusting to each others' idiosyncracies and social engagement styles. It requires compromise, and annoyance, and fighting and making up. Without those things, you can't have a true relationship. Relationships, among two people or groups, are messy and changeable. Their frustrations are the very reason that they are valuable.