[hardnose]

Seems like a recipe for elitism. The groups of interesting people would be virtually impossible to get into, and the pleb groups would be boring.

One of the things that worked about internet discussions of the past is that they prioritized quality of ideas, not importance of identity or who you know or any of that. Social media turned that on its head, I think a successful model might involve turning it back. More like UseNet than Facebook.

[solardev]

The early net was nice because it didn't have billions of people on it. It was a self selecting crowd of early tech adopters who had the time and money to have an online presence, a rarity back in the day. It was its own moderation system because there weren't that many people. Even the web index used to be manually curated.

Then the internet became a victim of its own success and the signal to noise ratio plummeted. You can't replicate the early internet with less moderation, you either need selective participation or heavy curation (not moderation).

[hardnose]

Let me make a counter argument - the signal to noise ratio was always awful. Look at UseNet, at Eternal September.

What changed wasn't the signal to noise ratio, but rather how the internet judged reputation of speakers. We went from forcing everyone to analyze the ideas presented, to offering them shortcuts in the form of "curation" or "moderation" that selected for better content.

Then, the gatekeepers of the "curation" and "moderation" systems developed cliques and hugboxes. They built balkanized, loyal audiences in this way. Call this the Fark, SomethingAwful, Bodybuildingforums, etc. era.

The strong balkanized cliques formed by this iteration pivoted their cliques into social media, and content began to be selected for based on who you were - how much money you had, who was on your friends list, what job positions you held. These cliques established fairly stringent, unwritten ideological litmus tests for admittance. And nobody is better at passing ideological litmus tests than motivated power seekers (i.e. activists) in fields like politics, academia, and journalism, who quickly discovered that they could blackmail/extort their way into the gatekeeping positions.

That leads us to today, where myopic moderation by ideological activists is sold to the public as "curation" and your ability to choose which speakers to hear is sold as a negative externality and a threat to public safety.

So what's the path forward? I posit that we could achieve much by actively suppressing these newer forms of gatekeeping, and returning in as much as possible to the original form that allowed internet discussions to thrive - anonymous text coupled with broad based evaluation of ideas, not speakers' allegiances, possessions, and public personas.