And a contingent issue is the (possibly catch-22) interaction of promoting Hubski (here is looking at you mr. x.. ;)) and not having a large enough community that would manifest the issues that we are addressing. In general, I belong to the philosophical camp that takes the long-standing (and material "real life") human society as the 'mother nature' of mediated societies. There is n thousand years of social thought that informs the norms of long standing civilizations. We have, thus, various sources to tap for guidance on (a) thoughtful spaces of discourse, and (b) stratified social spaces. (Remember that "filter" I mentioned in my few initial posts?) I also hold a perhaps atypical view (for a geek who studied architecture and considers it a fundamental & civilizational creative action) that social and system architecture can not universally address the shortcomings of the humans. (Note 'universal', please.)
Most definitely. That "reddit alternative" was some spin, however. Kevin (who wrote the article) did a nice job, but I think the "alternative" part was more him speaking to his audience than I was. Personally, I don't need a reddit alternative. I still drop in reddit and hn from time to time. I'm not trying to fix the "Problem with Reddit", if there is one. No. I hope we are doing something here that is about here. Part of anything is evolution for sure, but part of anything good is unique. :) That said, the article (and those actions of mr. x) do bring people to Hubski with impressions that will set initial conditions for behavior and expectations. No doubt, that is real. Perhaps success (in this respect) could be measured by a resilience of the individual user's experience to the variability of those coming to it. >In general, I belong to the philosophical camp that takes the long-standing (and material "real life") human society as the 'mother nature' of mediated societies. There is n thousand years of social thought that informs the norms of long standing civilizations. We have, thus, various sources to tap for guidance on (a) thoughtful spaces of discourse, and (b) stratified social spaces. (Remember that "filter" I mentioned in my few initial posts?) I absolutely agree that MN knows us better than we can ever. It's really learning from her that can be difficult. With that in mind, what is done, and what is not done can be equally important. Wouldn't it be nice if you and I could apply some of our own filters/philosophies (or not) to our own content and, by doing so, build the relationships/community that we desire? I'm watching, and listening, and reflecting. >I also hold a perhaps atypical view (for a geek who studied architecture and considers it a fundamental & civilizational creative action) that social and system architecture can not universally address the shortcomings of the humans. (Note 'universal', please.) I agree. I don't want to assume too much. As an ideal, I'd like the site to say: Here is a platform, and here are some ways it can be used: Do what you like! The trick is that what I like shouldn't prevent what you like. But isn't that always the trick? :) Thank you alpha0. Please always be frank. It's very valuable to have your perspective. Mine alone is not enough, and you can take a longer view than most.