Sounds hella lot like creating an echo chamber.haven't I always been one to argue close the gates and fuck the outs?
1) Does it truly create an echo chamber? Based on my experience, I'm not inclined to believe that if we closed the population of Hubski today, I'd be surrounded by individuals who generally agree with me and shore up my pre-existing opinions - 2) If it does create an echo chamber, can an argument be made that echo chambers have their time and space? In other words, to argue all echo chambers are bad is to argue that we should never surround ourselves with those we agree with, but only constantly (exhaustingly) challenge ourselves with the company of those who hold firmly vastly different views; 3) What is the positivity you are hoping to bring to "the situation" aka I guess Hubski which is absent in a closed community? What are the benefits of new users? 4) Great. Now let's compare the benefits to the cons. Does an open community really bring significantly more net positive to Hubski than a closed one, considering the hefty drawbacks? 5) ultimately, I think the answer to this sort of questioning, and where mk will find his decision, is to ask (yet another question): What is the intent of Hubski? If the intent of Hubski is to foster intelligent discussion among a group of people who have casually grown to know each other and could, in a closed community and given interest and time, become very tight-knit indeed, then close it. If the intent of Hubski is to provide artists and original content creators a place to showcase their work, well, closing the community's really going to fuck that goal apart. Previously, Hubski expressed an interest in the latter, obviously through features like DVH, less obviously in a sort of expressed ethos of the founding team. However, I'm not convinced that in the great previously, the founding team had necessarily an articulated, deliberate, basically planned and conscious role which they wanted to play - I think more that they got together, threw shit together, thought of things they thought would be cool, and loaded them all in there. Over time that did cause the website to develop in a certain direction but that doesn't mean that's how it should've developed, how the website may be best used or appreciated, etc, etc, etc. If Hubski is a place to hang out and talk with friends, an internet "3rd space," then I quite see the rationale and support closing it down to at least some extent. If Hubski is trying to build its share of the internet (an approach I do not support), they should keep 'em wide-wide open. If Hubski's trying to create a digital community of artists, there needs to be a middle ground at least, maybe where you can see pages if you are not logged in but you cannot interact, or etc. ON THE OTHER HAND, ABOUT THAT ARTISTIC ANGLE: Closing the community does relieve some pressure of sharing unpublished/draft/in progress or similar works with Hubski - I can't submit anything for publication basically anywhere if a version of it exists and is publicly accessible on the internet. It's a thing that's prevented me from sharing OC before. If Hubski closes borders, ironically, it could open up people's willingness to share their creations. Less chance of someone else trying to steal your work if only known, trusted users can see it, too. Just some thots yo just some thots
All closed systems settle. Restrict a room of air flow, and you'll find all dust on the floor. Restrict a crowd from mind flow, and you'll find all persons in bonds with each other. You may not end up with perfect clones of each other's mindset, but Hubski is already quite leaning to certain sides of things. Aiming to restrict oneself from outside opinions that might hurt one's worldview is poisonous, since there would be no one to question your behavior. In such an environment, thrive bitterness, anger and spite; nothing more. Take it from a guy who's spent his whole adolescence in self-isolation. This is not what we should aim at if we want to preserve what makes Hubski different from most other Internet forums. It bothers me to see you being intentionally obtuse as you claim the following: I suspect you would hold a grudge if I were to call you a social justice warrior while you were trying to fight for someone's rights, yet there's nothing wrong with doing so on its own. An echo chamber is prejudice confirmation ex nimia, not per se. Hubski doesn't see high tides of newcomers that often, and in such a community, fresh blood must be welcome. Those who don't accept the new things, stagnate. The irony of me refusing to accept the proposed new order of things is not lost on me. However, the tolerant can't tolerate intolerance, lest they desire to stand against their own principles. (while researching Hubski's popularity on the web, I discovered that my nickname is right there on the screenshot of Hubski's main page from a while ago) Point is: for a social creature, a closed system is a mind-killer. Take a gander at /r/The_Donald if you want to see what echo-chambering ad maximum looks like. Hubski's not likely to ever reach that point, given no etherial personage to get behind and worship, but it still experiences the effect of social entropy like any other community. The first step of preventing a condition is not aiming for environment that would allow it.to argue all echo chambers are bad is to argue that we should never surround ourselves with those we agree with, but only constantly (exhaustingly) challenge ourselves with the company of those who hold firmly vastly different views