I think the key issue is how the circles or groups work. What is the mechanism for interaction as in the sense of machinery? Zeynep Tufecki in "twitter and teargas" raises this issue using the term affordance. What does twitter afford/provide? It provides a mechanism that is good for flash mob, but not for not for creating new things. So Arab Spring turned into nothing.
What does HN afford? Comments. Is that how a social network works, I don't think so. In my experience comments on HH for example often tend toward negative or off topic.
There was some study quite a while ago talking about how if you had 25 people and asked them to solve a problem the solutions that were provided were much better when 5 groups of 5 people decided, then voted for the best solution. This was compared with one group of 25. Not sure whether there is real science there, but it sounds right to me.
We also live in the time of "cult of personality". Biden. Trump. Musk. Bezos. We follow people. We want to be infuencers. I think this is the result of our social media (and paying for things by advertising). I believe it is antithetical to effective communities. So no cult of personality. (And no advertising :-).
A few times in my life I have been part of something that was bigger than myself. A high school play, a 30 person startup. How do you get that sense?
A surprising truth to me is that I think much better when I am in conversation with sensible people. Not ones with the same opinions, but ones who actually think. I find that even when I immediately reject what they are saying, their thoughts somehow become part of mine. Artist often use the term of other work "informs" theirs and other mental constructs often "inform" my own. To my great benefit.
So for a started I would just ask if people were in agreement that
"the mechanism of the social interaction determines effectiveness of the community"
If you disagree, end of conversation. If you agree then what is your thinking on how that works?
Interesting points. I also agree that discussion revolves around thought rather than position. Debate is healthy but healthy debates are rare in this context.
I would argue the ideal mechanism for interaction (or affordance) is the ability to communicate, engage, and prosper across boundaries. I believe this concept is what made the early Internet so inspiring. We were hopeful and ambitious.
What does HN afford? Comments. Is that how a social network works, I don't think so. In my experience comments on HH for example often tend toward negative or off topic.
There was some study quite a while ago talking about how if you had 25 people and asked them to solve a problem the solutions that were provided were much better when 5 groups of 5 people decided, then voted for the best solution. This was compared with one group of 25. Not sure whether there is real science there, but it sounds right to me.
We also live in the time of "cult of personality". Biden. Trump. Musk. Bezos. We follow people. We want to be infuencers. I think this is the result of our social media (and paying for things by advertising). I believe it is antithetical to effective communities. So no cult of personality. (And no advertising :-).
A few times in my life I have been part of something that was bigger than myself. A high school play, a 30 person startup. How do you get that sense?
A surprising truth to me is that I think much better when I am in conversation with sensible people. Not ones with the same opinions, but ones who actually think. I find that even when I immediately reject what they are saying, their thoughts somehow become part of mine. Artist often use the term of other work "informs" theirs and other mental constructs often "inform" my own. To my great benefit.
So for a started I would just ask if people were in agreement that "the mechanism of the social interaction determines effectiveness of the community"
If you disagree, end of conversation. If you agree then what is your thinking on how that works?
Just my 2cents