(untitled)

Is this the fate of all internet communities?

Its not. The other way it goes is the small group exists until it can't sustain members and thus ceases to exist.

Its more like people get herded into platforms like reddit or facebook and then they condense and slowly snuff out other communities.

>>20332 Only if the community has a low barrier to entry.

>>20338 >Only if the community has a low barrier to entry. Sure, if a resource is difficult to use, few will use it. That's a terrible idea, though, that we should make resources difficult to use for the sake of exclusion. You'll also be excluding many person you'd want to include. The only time it makes sense to make it difficult to use, would be if you want to maintain smallness of the group. Also consider the fact that the persons that do end up using the resource it, are persons that have enough otherwise-bored time, or motivation, to use the resource. And lets consider the contrary case: a resource that is easy to use. If, for a person, a resource is easy to use, that person, if they want, will use that resource. This is perfectly fine when it's true of the persons that we want to use the resource. It's not so fine when it's true of the persons that we want to disuse the resource. Well, it's probably OK if it's one or two, or a few, or some other `small' group---small enough to deal with them case-by-case as they arise. In some cases, we might rather err slightly restrictively, restricting some persons we don't want to restrict, to ensure restricting all persons we want to restrict. Optimally, we'd want to err nought: all persons we want to restrict are restricted, all persons we want to not restrict are not restricted. (This says nothing about whether/how neutrals should be restricted. I'd err on the side of freedom, i.e. not restricting them, unless it's too expensive.)

Of course not. What an absurd over-simplistic naive statement. I have seen all of these: >OP comic >4th panel defeated by enforced cultural barrier of entry >3rd panel defeated by niche topic that doesn't create enough interest to ever cause mass influx >4th panel mitigated by repeating 2nd panel >place conquered by raids or admin psychosis/douchebaggery >place slowly loses members and are unwilling or unable to replace them, starving itself of activity (>>20333)

>>20339 >difficult to use This is different from barrier of entry. Difficulty of use is just one type of barrier of use, which inherently increases the barrier of entry. There are many others, which if done well can allow ease of use. Some examples: >obscurity (e.g. small site or chat rooms that don't get shared on popular sites, not easy to learn about it existing) >exclusivity (e.g. need invitation to enter, non-public) >special tools required (e.g. darknet sites) >difficulty of use (imageboards generally have very little to none, don't even need an account) >esoteric, special understanding required (e.g. communities with a culture that make little sense to outsiders who don't spend time to understand it, anime captchas) >cultural moderation (e.g. banning suspected 4chan users, deleting low quality posts) >repulsion (e.g. edginess on 2000s 4chan, MLP imageboards, CoC)

>20341 captcha type things that require 140 iq to solve

>contribution outer circle and inner members, outer members can join inner circle by contributing. This motivates less brewing soykaf and more value.

>>20341 There's this sort of an inverse concept to gatekeeping which is useful to employ alongside it. I'm tempted to call it "dogwhistling" but that word has too much baggage. Maybe "coded signalling"? What I'm trying to say is gatekeeping, including the barriers you mentioned, is good for keeping people you don't want out. However, many of them also repel people you would want to accept. So it's useful to broadcast a signal that will only be properly received and understood by the right type of person, to let them know that their effort will be rewarded. For instance, when I see someone posting a lain or using a lain avatar it tells me that there's a good chance they're worth talking to.

>>20354 >There's this sort of an inverse concept to gatekeeping which is useful to employ alongside it. I'm tempted to call it "dogwhistling" but that word has too much baggage. Maybe "coded signalling"? Perhaps "shibboleth"?

>>20361 Close, but specifically for the benefit of prospective new members.

>>20332 you should have posted this instead op

>>20365 This comic is actually very anti-male. It shows boys and men as shallow, stupid and ultimately controlled by hormones.

>>20366 you sounds like a incel no offense

>>20366 Thats a pretty poor takeaway from it, the point is that most people aren't actually interested in the niche activity and just want to socialise which is basically true. Besides, the average man is hormone controlled, the idea of a universal brother/sisterhood is nonsense

>>20365 No they shouldn't have. It's an even less common example of the fate of an arbitrary community.

>>20333 There's a usenet group I like to lurk that's been going 17+ years. They post every day. There's only 4 friends left from the original members. They're talking about getting dentures, having grandkids... I wonder if Lainchan will be like that one day.

>>20371 >emoticons with noses It seems they kept their culture intact. Respect.

>>20367 How? One woman joining your group would ruin it? If this your reality, if the men you hang out with are that beta, you're clearly the real candidate to be an incel here.

>>20371 The oldest English language imageboard (by only several months) is not 4chan. Some of the oldtimers there have met in person and are old IRC friends. Several have died of natural causes and are still mentioned occasionally.

>>20375 Now that you mention it, I remember seeing world2ch mentioned on the 4chan.net news page. Is that the one you mean? >Edit for the world2ch crew: Don't worry, there is no plan to put up several inactive sports and political forums. This will be largely image and comedy based, we have no intention of partaking in intelligent discussions concerning foreign affairs. >moot, 2003 hahaha......

>>20371 Im in a obscure gamedev chatroom for decades, theres like 5 of us left all 30ish with dead end lifes. The only one who ever had a gf is the one who met her in the nuthouse and has serious depenency issues cuz she takes drugs and goes in and out of the nuthouse all the time. We do gamedev for the heck of it, even though we all realize nobody will ever give a fuarrrk about all the work we did and we will die miserably soon with nobody left behind to give a soykaf.

>>20376 Actually no, 1chan.net where they only discuss one topic, ever. They claim to predate 4chan by a short span though no one can prove it but it was well known that moot and the original owner of 1chan were bros. Moot used to post on 1chan sometimes.

>>20332 Yes. It's happening to Lainchan right now.

>>20392 scarecrow anon, lainchan isn't soykaffting that much

>>20394 Just the fact that you refer to me as "anon" instead of "lain" proves me right.

>>20394 Lurk moar

>>20398 >>20399 [both of which, paraphrased, say "you do not fit in here"] im confused now, are we the gray ones or the pink ones?

>>20341 >>difficult to use >This is different from barrier of entry. Difficulty of use is just one type of barrier of use, which inherently increases the barrier of entry. There are many others, which if done well can allow ease of use. No, it's really not. The point of having a barrier of entry, is to make it difficult to use, for those who you want to not use it. The point is to make sure that only those who you want to prevent from using it are given these difficulties. The problem, as evidenced by your following list of examples, is that some communities jump on arbitrary barriers to entry, thinking they're doing themselves a favor---they're really not, they're only secluding themselves: >difficulty of use (imageboards generally have very little to none, don't even need an account) This, verbatim, is what >>20339's talking about. (And imageboards do have some difficulties to use. For example, many don't explicate their rules, so a post that breaks the tacit rules will be removed, and the poster might be derezzed, for something that poster didn't know shouldn't be done.) >special tools required (e.g. darknet sites) Requiring special tools is patently and undue difficulty. (And have you considered the fact that sites that accessible only via darknets, might do that for the network-privacy benefits?) >obscurity (e.g. small site or chat rooms that don't get shared on popular sites, not easy to learn about it existing) Meaning what? That only few even know how to get there? Or that of those who do, there are few who can endure the journey? As a barrier to entry, that's like how russia uses the siberian wastes as a natural defense. And like the siberian wastes, it doesn't keep all malefactors out. There was a joke that when the soviet union finally takes over the world, it'll have a majority chinese population, because they know how to creep up into siberia. I'm not saying they're malefactors to russia---I only mention to emphasize the fault of this defense. It's pretty much the same as the security-by-obscurity fault. Of course, if your goal is to attract hackers, you could put up weak but fairly obscure security measures---but that would fail as soon as someone shares the access method too freely, much like an invitations system. On the other hand, if you change the weak security to some other obscure thing, it'll basically kick everyone out, to have to hack their way in again, but they'll at least know that it's there to be hacked. >repulsion (e.g. edginess on 2000s 4chan, MLP imageboards, CoC) OK, if you're able to find something that isn't repulsive to any persons that you'd want to have as part of your community. If it is, it's an undue difficulty for them. The only way to avoid that, is to make that repulsive thing be something that's inherent to what you're trying to do. For example, taking some things that are perfectly fine, but emphasizing the parts that others would find repulsive. If there's a community (probably over a darknet, for obvious reasons) that is accepting of paedophilia, plastering CP all over the home page could be a natural way to repulse visitors that are not tolerant of paedophilia. Of course it'd have to be something that isn't attractive to would-be malefactors. If you don't want paedophiles on your site, don't plaster CP all over the homepage. Sorry if that's an extreme example, but it's a poignant illustration. >esoteric, special understanding required (e.g. communities with a culture that make little sense to outsiders who don't spend time to understand it, anime captchas) This works the same as repulsion, except instead of repulsion making it difficult to use, it's elitism. Don't understand everything we want you to understand? Have a hard time using the service! Similarly, you'd have to be careful to not exclude anyone who's good enough to benefit the community, but not U83R!337. And just like with repulsion, if your elitism criteria are not inherent to the community, then you don't have any guarantee that you aren't excluding someone who is U83R!337 but not in that unrelated subject. A secret-society that has levels of secrets, could use those secrets for in it's user-test. >cultural moderation (e.g. banning suspected 4chan users, deleting low quality posts) I think this may be the most lenient of suggestions, but it depends on the competence of the moderation. Deleting low-quality posts should be universal, I think---or at least dumping them into the heap-o-soykaf. I saw one forum that has a heap-o-soykaf section, where they move any posts deemed bad. I think that's better than deleting a low-quality post, unless it endangers the forum e.g. posting CP on a clearnet forum. The former criterion: suspected 4chan usage, is not really a valid criterion. Hell, there are lainchan members who use to use 4chan, and probably some still do now and again. It's basically the same as nationalism: identity politics. Hey, if that's what you're going for, then fine, but it's probably not healthy in the long run.

>>20402 (sorry for longpost, I don't feel like deleting any more) It's absolutely a tough issue. How do you automatically filter out those you don't want but not those you want? There are probably going to be false positives and false negatives however you do it. My original post was poorly thought out, I ended up just listing them, not just ones that I think could be a good idea. Many of them are incidental, and weren't and shouldn't be done by choice. As you pointed out, those are just secluding themselves (which I think can be a good thing as long as you are not so secluded that you don't gain new users. Not perfect, but good.) >No, it's really not. I think I'm on a different page: The way I see it, barrier of entry can just make it hard to use the first time and fine afterwards. One example is a thorough registration system which makes your first post tough but the rest pretty easy once logged in. I interpreted difficulty of use as how hard it is to actually use, like forcing captcha completion per post, user-unfriendly UI, etc. which probably was misinterpreting it. >verbatim I think you used the wrong word there. >and the poster might be derezzed, for something that poster didn't know shouldn't be done. That will happen on most imageboards and you are right, it is a barrier of use. I see that as a cultural barrier. In terms of barriers to just post rather than actually fitting in to the community, on imageboards there is no need to log in and sometimes no need to fill captchas. Any spammer and anyone familiar with the basic imageboard post form can jump right into the action. That is what I meant by low barrier of use. >And have you considered the fact that sites that accessible only via darknets, might do that for the network-privacy benefits? haha come on lainon, don't assume I'm an idiot. Of course that's why they do it and why I use them. I'm just saying they probably won't be seeing many Facebook moms drop by like 8ch/8kun does (this is not an exaggeration, 'inform' politics and Q actually attracted those types who have no idea what happens on the other boards. They use the fuc­king email field and you can dox them) >It's pretty much the same as the security-by-obscurity fault. It literally is security by obscurity, yes. Security by obscurity is something you should never rely on to counter a savvy and determined adversary, but that doesn't mean it's null and void. People do mention lainchan sometimes on more popular sites like 4chan /g/ and 8ch /tech/ (see the 'how did you find lainchan' thread) but even still we don't get too much fresh traffic. You don't get people who unironically post emojis and selfies and twitter screencaps. Again, you are right, it's a very fragile defense. If there was a newsworthy event or tech board users seeking refuge, we could see lain become less obscure very rapidly, but I don't see us being popular to the point of detriment any time soon. >Sorry if that's an extreme example, but it's a poignant illustration. That's fine, and I agree. I would see the plastering as a downside, as that may be enough to signal and attract outsiders rather than simply repel sensitive insiders. I think a fine balance could be a legitimate defense to consider. Another example is ironic edgy humor on 4chan's /b/ after they began to get famous, which (through critical media and fame) soon attracted people who thought it was unironic. That's the risk of it going wrong. It would be good to find something that can repel without attracting unwanted outsiders. I wonder if /mlpol/ could be an interesting case study (paradoxical intersection of two polarizing forces). >esoteric Overall I agree. There is often a separation from repulsion though, that esoteric stuff is a culture that sometimes can be more easily learned. It's like how we have Lain culture on this site. I haven't watched any of it but it's not hard to pick up the themes and memes and even feign familiarity. Another imageboard I integrated into is centered around a subculture that shapes the core humor and themes of the site, but it's easy to learn about (as in, there's a Wikipedia page) and will make the site unenjoyable or confusing to those who don't share our subculture, philosophy or humor. I came in looking for relevant porn and learned the culture from scratch.

>>20366 I guess incels are anti-male... They definitely give all males a bad name.

>>20332 Branching >Intranet >Yggdrasil >Freifunk >Internet2 >Network over AC / Power Grid >Squatting abandoned network infrastructures (post/preWW2) >MWeb >>20341 >obscurity (e.g. small site or chat rooms that don't get shared on popular sites, not easy to learn about it existing) Imageboards are obscure enough. Either you become a polyglot or program a translator to broaden your imageboard access but currently there's a lot of imageboards with little to no user activity. It seems after the shooter incidents and the inevitable domain name change of about 4 imageboards, a lot of the former users couldn't find the original address and went down to reddit and 4chan. I've lately seen a lot of reddit throwaways with chan speak and 4chan migrants from shutdown imageboards complaining how this imageboard died (not actually but some of them have become honeypots). >esoteric, special understanding required (e.g. communities with a culture that make little sense to outsiders who don't spend time to understand it, anime captchas) This is true. Like setting up IRC already weeds out the soykaf users. >repulsion (e.g. edginess on 2000s 4chan, MLP imageboards, CoC) Isn't today's imageboard just as edgy? Just look at Tarrant worshipers on political imageboards. I try to avoid them at all costs.

>>20400 > are we the gray ones or the pink ones Can we choose none of the above?

>>20485 >Isn't today's imageboard just as edgy? Many of them, yes, but the difference is that the Tarrant stuff I've seen is unironic. A lot of INTERNET HATE MACHINE era edginess was done for the sake of humor or repulsion, there weren't threads of straight-faced political discussion behind the Hitler pictures.