[visakanv]

You just hit on one of the fundamental reasons why all online communities tend towards toxicity – the people who have the most time and energy to invest in discussions (which eventually snowball into flame wars) are the people who aren't actually doing the actual work.

These things then feed off of themselves – in a sociopolitical 'guardian' type community (/r/atheism, /r/childfree, etc etc) it ends up becoming highly caustic towards the outgroup with everyone competing for in-group status points, while in a 'trader' type community (/r/entrepreneur, /r/marketing), you end up getting flooded by shysters and self-promoters.

The moderates shake their heads and leave, and you're left with the inmates running the asylum.

[nostrademons]

This is more true of communities built around ideas rather than activities, and there are also moderating tactics you can use to avoid it. For example, online communities based around astronomy, or radio-controlled airplanes, or baking, or other hobbies remain relatively healthy even decades after their founding.

Also there are communities around conventionally caustic topics (eg. Lambda: The Ultimate for programming language design, Penny Arcade for games) that manage to survive for a decade+ with no loss of quality because of moderation policies. For example, L:tU has an "avoiding ungrounded discussion" policy - every thread must be centered around discussion of a published academic paper, which first of all keeps the focus on people who actually do work, and second of all discourages everyone without the background to read and understand academic papers.

[jballanc]

I don't understand how people constantly miss the most obvious solution to keeping a community grounded: charge an entry fee.

[bbaumgar]

Could you point to some examples where this has worked? It seems that the entry fee would either 1. limit the community's growth severely (not necessarily a bad thing), or 2. filter out good candidates.

[rfrank]

SomethingAwful's forums required a paid membership and have been around a long time. IMO one of the points of a paid model is keeping membership down to people who actually care enough to pay said membership.

[alexandersingh]

Additionally, the implicit threat of having your paid membership revoked for bad behavior can provide a natural check.

Something Awful has used this to great effect to keep trolls in line. I wonder what % of their membership revenue comes from banned users purchasing new accounts.

[zemvpferreira]

I'd say most of it, at this point. As a long-time goon, getting banned and rereging the account is a way of patronage. No joke, it's very common behaviour there.

[shrikant]

In addition to the examples posted, this model also worked well for MetaFilter. Some of the highest quality online discussions I've seen.

[stevewilhelm]

TED and ACM

https://www.ted.com/ http://www.acm.org/

[pc86]

ACM is a professional association, and I wouldn't consider TED a community.

Neither of these is anything close to a subreddit or forum which is the "community" to which the thread is generally referring.

[Spivak]

I would think that LWN is a good example.

[MarcBodnick]

What are examples where this has worked? MetaFilter is one, but very small.

[xiaoma]

That doesn't work at all. Just look at sponsored posts on pretty much any publication/blog/forum. Every single one is paid and they race for the lowest tolerated behavior.

[bjelkeman-again]

Good moderation works well IMHO.

[kristianc]

This is what has killed Twitter. Both social justice Twitter and right-wing Twitter revolve around competing for status-points, and backslapping (the latest trend is linking to other people's egotistical tweetstorms along with a comment like 'This' or 'Thread'.

Very little challenge of ideas takes place - either from within communities or from outside. The whole thing has become a Wittgensteinian language game where people compete to praise or denounce the latest political trend in the most caustic or verbose way. It's tiresome and offputting to people unwilling to subjugate their entire online persona to their identity.

[alexjv89]

stop following a lot of people and twitter will be substantially better.

[pryelluw]

I still find value on Twitter. The problems you define are real, but that means you have to dig a little deeper to connect with good people.

[bsenftner]

I think you have outlined the basic issue with human social interactions of any size greater than 3 people.

[pcmaffey]

> the people who have the most time and energy to invest in discussions (which eventually snowball into flame wars) are the people who aren't actually doing the actual work.

Pretty sure we've reached peak-discussion. Future online communities will be based primarily on activity.

[double0jimb0]

Interesting analysis, seems to explain my personal observations.

Only wrinkle I'd propose: The "moderates", or any of the characters you define, aren't fixed, and personal circumstance often colors which role one plays at any given time.

[henrygrew]

A very interesting point of view, what do you think can be done to counter this outcome.

[jfktrey]

What if you made community contribution a limited resource?

Continuing the reddit example. You could limit contribution by three routes:

1) Limiting the number of posts. For example, 3 posts per week, max.

2) Limiting the visibility of posts. The more you post, the less an upvote counts. Effective Upvote Value = 1 / (posts this week)

3) Limiting the visibility of posts based on post quality. The more you post in a week and the lower your per-post average karma, the less an upvote counts. Effective Upvote Value = (per-post average karma) / (posts this week)

Just a thought.

[ComputerGuru]

3) Limiting the visibility of posts based on post quality. The more you post in a week and the lower your per-post average karma, the less an upvote counts. Effective Upvote Value = (per-post average karma) / (posts this week)

You probably weren't around for it, but HN experimented with something like this where each commenter's running average point tally for the last X posts or Y time was visible on their profile and indirectly visible on each of their comments. Their name (comment?) would appear in a different (darker?) shade the higher their running average.

I personally liked it, but it was rolled back after a couple of months. I think people became afraid to make replies that wouldn't accumulate up votes, and I know I wouldn't reply to threads if someone commented a day later because "it wasn't worth it."

[rhizome]

HN has "you're posting too fast!" per-user rate limiting.

[xiaoma]

Github managed to escape that dynamic up until the last couple of years.