[flatline]

He named it, so is ever so slightly wrong - but all of us who have been around for a while and have participated semi-regularly in discussions without getting banned are in. Relative to the global online population this is still a very small group.

[andrewflnr]

I don't think that's quite right. In Lewis's thesis, you only really encounter the in/out question by interacting with people who are in. By your definition, interacting on HN puts you in already. And "and have participated semi-regularly in discussions without getting banned" is a much lower bar than anything Lewis is talking about. You'd have a much better point w.r.t. lobste.rs or other invite-only forums, but the whole concept is dubious without private discussions.

[cratermoon]

The forum itself enforces a level of in/out. There's the green text for new users, then karma thresholds gating some actions.

[andrewflnr]

Still a ludicrously low bar. Doesn't change much (again, compared to Lewis's inner ring).

[cratermoon]

Granted, but I'm not saying that just posting and commenting on HN, or passing the various gates, constitutes being 'in'. Even having high karma isn't 'in'. I don't know if I can articulate what counts as being 'in', but certainly participation in a YC round is part of it.

[andrewflnr]

No, that actually kind of is what you were saying in your previous comment, about what "the forum itself enforces".

You could identify a set of people who are widely respected and listened to, but that's a different thing again from what Lewis is talking about. YC itself is arguably closer, but only tenuously connected in practice to HN social dynamics. I certainly couldn't tell you which members I pay attention to have been through YC (except for the ones who definitely haven't).