|
|
|
|
|
by antigonemerlin
1072 days ago
|
|
You're absolutely right. I think the problem is that connecting everyone to everyone is a mistake. As John Oliver (I think, I can't find the source of the original quote now), puts it, "Facebook is the Walmart of social media." Yes, everyone and your mom is on there... but that means every post is going to be seen by your mother. That is frankly, terrifying. Building on your analogy, it'd be like if in the real world your local pub mates and your business friends met. These are two different communities that most certainly cannot be welded into a single forum. >I suspect (maybe hope?) we are going to start seeing organic social start happening as groups start trying to increasingly assert their own identities and moderation policies that are incompatible with a global standard. I think this is exactly what you're seeing. Of all the different social media models, personally, it's reddit and discord that won out for me, along with a smattering of more niche like Hacker News and the discussions page on Github. You can't and shouldn't build a community that satisfies everybody. |
|
This is solved by people just make another profile to keep it separate. It is okay not to add your mother on your hobby account.
>These are two different communities that most certainly cannot be welded into a single forum.
But sites like Facebook are not just a single forum. Each group can be it's own community. People can keep two discussions separate.
>You can't and shouldn't build a community that satisfies everybody.
I don't think this is impossible. It is hard to scale a community to billions of people, but large social media sites are an existence proof that it is possible. Though at that scale it is more of a meta community compared to smaller subcommunities that are made which are more comfortable for humans to interact with.
I don't think it's impossible to find a set of rules that a billion people would be willing to agree to.