SaidIt should be seen as an intellectual platform, not as a social media site.

submitted by Aureus from (self.whatever)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Aureus[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

That's a very important concern. Thanks for mentioning it. I hadn't even realized that may happen.

There's some other reddit alternatives that fall into this trap - the biggest one I can think of is Poal. It makes them very annoying to use.

Even so, I think there's ways it could be managed while still allowing the site to grow. Any bonds made should be intellectual, not strictly personal. Users should collaborate with other users to create more valuable content to share, not to create an insular culture full of in-jokes and shibboleths.

Like you, I am 100% on board with this becoming a major site free from SJW influence. I just think creating quality content is the way to get there. Members shouldn't be shunning new users, but instead seeking to integrate them. That's perfectly consistent with having an intellectual platform while avoiding exclusive ingroup culture.

[–]Chipit 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I've just found that lots and lots of people out there don't have an ingroup, and thus they cling to their online ones fiercely. And God forbid you, an outsider, stumble upon their "community" and expect it to be about the title in the header.

I remember one forum where some idiot poster was spewing off-topic idiocy everywhere, so I asked that it stop. I got viciously attacked because evidently this was some 14 year old kid and it was OK if she broke the rules even if they applied to everyone else. That's when I made the connection to ingroups and outgroups. They identified with their ingroup by defending the ingroup against me, the outgroup. Well excuse the hell out of me for wanting to find an out of print manual for my car stereo and asking about it on a forum supposedly dedicated to vintage car stereos. Turns out they didn't really do that any more, and it was more about the annual get-together that they had and making jokes and sharing kids photos. Yikes.

[–]Aureus[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I've thought about it, and I actually disagree with your earlier post. Ingroups are important, but not the ingroups you have in mind.

See your own post here, which changed my mind: https://saidit.net/s/whatever/comments/4yjw/saidit_should_be_seen_as_an_intellectual_platform/ilt8

The earlier Internet you describe is an ingroup. But it's not an ingroup based on arbitrary friendships. It's an ingroup based on skill, and in some ways that led to shared views about the world, and higher-quality discussions.

IMO a successful web community has to have an ingroup. If it accepts anyone and everyone, the quality goes down to the lowest common denominator. However, that ingroup should be based on skill, intelligence, or some other kind of merit, rather than just personal ties. It shouldn't be either too inclusive, or too exclusive.

[–]magnora7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

IMO a successful web community has to have an ingroup. If it accepts anyone and everyone, the quality goes down to the lowest common denominator.

You have a good understanding of how this actually works. It's can't be a free-for-all, or things will quickly go bad, and we have many sites that clearly show this, like voat, poal, and others