[JumpCrisscross]

> Back in the day an absolutely minuscule portion of humanity read blogs

What I think it comes down to is us, on one level, grasping the benefits of elitist gatekeeping, but, on another level, not wanting to acknowledge that such mechanisms have benefits.

The elitism I speak of isn’t one of wealth, family or schooling. Instead it’s intellectual curiosity. That seems to correlate with the foregoing; hence the discomfort (at least in democratic societies).

Simply: when the internet was peopled by the curious and clever, it was fun. When it had to—or could—cater to a lower common denominator, it did. And that gave us this crap.

[0xDEAFBEAD]

It's not just gatekeeping. Recall the "Eternal September" concept. Prior to "Eternal September", it used to be that every September, a new wave of college students got access to the internet, and they would misbehave. But eventually they learned the norms of how to behave online, and things settled down.

That suggests a plan for internet reform. Start with a small group of contributors devoted to a better internet. Let new people in at a slow rate, so they acclimatize to norms of how to behave.

Maybe strict gatekeeping isn't actually necessary, and it's just about (a) starting with something good, and (b) adjusting the rate of newcomers to ensure that they actually acclimatize. If your platform grows 1% monthly, that will produce rapid compounding, yet could still be slow enough for acclimatization.

[SilverElfin]

Well said. In particular about the lowest common denominator and about the curious and clever. So moving it away from the Internet growing up and focusing on democratic societies, what do you think the conclusion is. What’s a better model than a non gatekeeping democratic one?

[JumpCrisscross]

> what do you think the conclusion is. What’s a better model than a non gatekeeping democratic one?

Sort of the question for our generation. I wish I had an answer.

[SilverElfin]

To get more specific - by which measurable trait would you gatekeep, if you would prefer gatekeeping? Age? Income? IQ? Some sort of social reputation score? Civics tests? What would lead to better choices but also avoid populist revolution?

[Mikhail_Edoshin]

Real identities as a first step?

[MarkusQ]

> People are bastards in real life. People are angels anonymously.

This is exactly the opposite of my experience.

[brabel]

They must have mixed up the two?!! This is even a meme: the most measured person in real life being absolutely vicious online!

[JumpCrisscross]

> Real identities as a first step?

If we could answer the preceding question, we'd have solved society. People are bastards in real life. People are angels anonymously. (If anything, taking away real identities neuters the internet's celebrity tendency.)

The only gate with a track record is tendency towards exploration. When the internet was a frontier, it selected for curiosity and, if not intelligence, at least daring (for its own sake). When it became accessible, we got influencers.