I agree that a big part of the problem is financialized capitalism (whether VC money or Reddit’s stock market speculation or the Putin regime realizing that they could just buy LiveJournal). We also have the right to take generous paychecks from Substack, or host all our video on Youtube for free. But we can’t expect that Substack will be as generous forever or YouTube could offer exactly what it offers today minus the ads and tracking and pay for itself. There are lots of Internet communities which are decentralized or nonprofit or democratically governed but they don’t have the budgets of giant corporate services.

Online communities can also fade for mundane reasons like “failure to recruit new members as fast as old members leave” or “founders have a tiff and the community breaks up into warring factions” or “old site was designed for laptops and dialup, now we have smartphones and broadband, but our user base does not want to change.” Financial speculation make this worse but community management is hard.

Not at all. I am saying that we cannot all have our own digital Versailles and servants forever after. We can have our own digital living room and kitchen and take turns hosting friends there, but we have to do the work, and it will never be big or glamorous. Valente could have said “big social media sucks but small open web things are great” but instead she wants the benefits of big corporate services without the drawbacks.

I have been an open web person for decades. There is lots of space there to explore. But I do not believe that we will ever find a giant corporation which borrows money from LutherCorp and Bank of Mordor, builds a giant ‘free’ service with a slick design, and never runs out of money or starts stuffing itself with ads.

A point that Maciej Ceglowski among others have made is that the VC model traps services into “spend big” until they run out of money or enshitiffy, and that services like Dreamwidth, Ghost, and Signal offer ‘social-media-like’ experiences on a much smaller budget while earning modest profits or paying for themselves. But Dreamwidth, Ghost, and Signal are never going to have the marketing budget of services funded by someone else’s money, or be able to provide so many professional services gratis. So you have to chose: threadbare security on the open web, or jumping from corporate social media to corporate social media amidst bright lights and loudspeakers telling you what site is the NEW THING.

In an ideal world, reddit communities could have moved onto a self-hosted or nonprofit service like LiveJournal became Dreamwidth. But it was not a surprise that a money-burning for-profit social media service would eventually try to shake down the users, which is why my Reddit history is a few dozen Old!SneerClub posts while my history on the Internet is much more extensive. The same thing happened with ‘free’ PhpBB services and mailing list services like Yahoo! Groups, either they put in more ads or they shut down the free version.

Its not nihilism to observe that Reddit is bigger and fancier than this Lemmy server because Reddit is a giant business that hopes to make money from users. Online we have a choice between relatively small, janky services on the Internet (where we often have to pay money or help with systems administration and moderation) or big flashy services on corporate social media where the corporation handles all the details for us but spies on us and propagandizes us. We can chose (remember the existentialists?) but each comes with its own hassles and responsibilities.

And nobody, whether a giant corporation or a celebrity, is morally obliged to keep providing tech support and moderation and funding for a community just because it formed on its site. I have been involved in groups or companies which said “we can’t keep running this online community, we will scale it back / pass it to some of our users and let them move it to their own domain and have a go at running it” and they were right to make that choice. Before Musk Twitter spent around $5 billion/year and I don’t think donations or subscriptions were ever going to pay for that (the Wikimedia Foundation raises hundreds of millions a year, and many more people used Wikipedia than used Twitter).

I think I read that post and thought it was incredibly naive, on the level of “why does the barkeep ask if I want a drink?” or “why does the pretty woman with a nice smile want me to pay for the VIP lounge?” Cheap clanky services like forums and mailing lists and Wordpress blogs can be maintained by one person or a small club but if you want something big, smooth, and high-bandwidth someone is paying real money and wants something back. Examples in the original post included geocities, collegeclub.com, MySpace, Friendster, Livejournal, Tumblr, Twitter and those were all big business which made big investments and hoped to make a profit.

Anyone who has helped run a medium-sized club or a Fedi server has faced an agenda item like "we are growing. Input of resources from new members is not matching the growth in costs and hassle. How do we explain to the new members what we need to keep going and get them to follow up? "

There is a whole argument that VC-backed for-profit corporations are a bad model for hosting online communities but even nonproffits or Internet celebrities with active comments face the issue “this is growing, it requires real server expenses and professional IT support and serious moderation. Where are those coming from? Our user base is used to someone else invisibly providing that.”

I have never met Ceglowski or talked to anyone involved in his movements. These days I am doing some local things rather than join in the endless smartphone arguments about “everyone should be an activist and organizer!” vs. “I tried that and the things that make me good at writing long essays about politics / viral social media posts make me bad at organizing to elect a city counselor.”

I wonder what would have happened if Ceglowski had kept focused on talks and on working with the few Bay Area tech workers who were serious about unionizing, regulation, and anti-capitalism. It seemed like after the response to his union drive was smaller and less enthusiastic than he had hoped, he pivoted to cybersecurity education and campaign fundraising.

One of his warnings was that the megacorps are building systems so a few opinionated tech workers can’t block things. Assuming that a few big names will always be able to hold back a multibilliondollar company through individual action so they don’t need all that frustrating organizing seems unwise (as we are seeing in the state of the market for computer touchers in the USA).

There is a Yud quote about closet goblins in More Everything Forever p. 143 where he thinks that the future-Singularity is an empirical fact that you can go and look for so its irrelevant to talk about the psychological needs it fills. Becker also points out that “how many people will there be in 2100?” is not the same sort of question as “how many people are registered residents of Kyoto?” because you can’t observe the future.

His talks are great, but his time as a union organizer and campaign fundraiser left him so disillusioned that he headed in a reactionary direction (and neglected the business that lets him throw himself at random projects). He is a case study why getting on twitter is a very bad idea.

Maciej Ceglowski said that one reason he gave up on organizing SoCal tech workers was that they kept scheduling events in a Google meeting room using their Google calendar with “Re: Union organizing?” as the subject of the meeting.

The latest poster who is pretty sure that Hacker News posts critical of YCombinator and their friends get muted like on big corporate sites (HN is open that they do a lot of moderation, but some is more public than others; this guy is not a fan of Omarchy Linux) https://マリウス.com/the-mysterious-forces-steering-views-on-hacker-news/

I have never found sociology which is useful for solving the practical problem of keeping a community for nerdy introverts a community for nerdy introverts. To spot characters like Shermer and keep or shunt them away from power takes experience and judgement and ethics, and as Chapman says the people best equipped to spot them are often poorly equipped to get power in the community and do the shoving. Realizing that you are in a cult and its time to leave (or that Scott Alexander is really in to the race stuff and Yud is serious about the apocalypse) also takes experience and judgement.

I think you are confusing fanatics-the-common-noun with fanatics-the-terminus-technicus. Chapman’s fanatics are (eg.) the people who organize the independent film fest and talk endlessly about independent films but don’t direct or act in their own films, or the people who reply to posts but don’t initiate their own threads. Thus in his model the fanatics get tired when there are to many MOPs, whereas the “barroom lawyer” type just ignores them or has more newbies to put in awe.

Personally I don’t think I have met anyone fitting this description: “They love to be a part of something but they’re too insecure to let other people love it too, and they lose their ability to meaningfully contribute because they’re so busy policing the boundaries of the space.”

Trying to make money is not what makes you a sociopath in this model. Geeks almost always try to make money from the thing so they can devote more time to it, and until recently Yud kept turning away from chances to make more money (eg. selling his books rather than give them away for free, or learning more programming in the nineties and oughties and talking himself into a software job). Its that you care more about money and sex and social power than the thing itself. I don’t think Yud is a fake but I think he can’t accept that he is an entertainer and popularizer not a genius researcher.

One problem with Chapman’s model is that it does not have room for people who like the thing, but find they enjoy exercising social power more than the thing itself (figures like Michael Shermer, or aging rockers who stop innovating but release just enough music to keep women squealing at them and the royalties coming in). It divides people into archtypes, but most are in between.

promo rate

And if you check the fliers, if you subscribe to premium California Ideology you get maximum unbounded scale for free!¹ Read those footnotes and check Savvy Shopper so you don’t over pay for your beliefs!

¹ Offer does not apply to housing, public transit, or power plants

Author works for something called Varda Space (guess who is one of the major investors? drink. Guess what orifice the logo looks like? drink) and previously tried to replicate a claimed room-temperature superconductor https://www.wired.com/story/inside-the-diy-race-to-replicate-lk-99/

Some interesting ethnography of private space people in California: "People jump straight to hardware and hand-wave the business case, as if the economics are self-evident. They aren’t. "

Page uses that “electrons = electricity” metonymy that prompt-fonding CEOs have been using

I also enjoy :

Radiation/shielding impacts on mass ignored; no degradation of structures beyond panel aging

Getting high-powered electronics to work outside the atmosphere or the magnetosphere is hard, and going from a 100 meter long ISS to a 4 km long orbital data center would be hard. The ISS has separate cooling radiators and solar panels. He wants LEO to reduce the effects of cosmic rays and solar storms, but its already hard to keep satellites from crashing into something in LEO.

Possible explanation for the hand waving:

I love AI and I subscribe to maximum, unbounded scale.

your supporting link names neither

I agree that the following paragraph does not name specific people: “Big names in science and skepticism blundered into scandals both big and small. That didn’t mean their past work was suddenly nullified yet they were socially punished in social media campaigns from foul-mouthed ‘science’ bloggers and Team Skepchick.” I disagree that Sharon A. Hill does not have specific people in mind, or that anyone who was around back then would have too much trouble naming them.

In writing that essay she made a heroic effort to keep the focus on the community not specific names.

A subculture many of his readers are familiar with is pick-up artistry. It was founded by a few charismatic obsessed dudes, who teach how to make outsiders give you want you want, and who often have ways of making money from their disciples which are not open and straightforward (whether advertising expensive seminars with dubious benefits, or funneling them into get-rich-quick schemes and get-hot-quickly schemes). PUA did not have a founding generation of unworldly geeks followed by superficial sociopaths, and the big egos don’t just fleece the casual fans but people outside the subculture.

People tell me that the California counterculture in the 1960s and 1970s had a strong entrepreneurial side.