Content pfp
Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

emilee pfp
emilee
@emilee
Social capital runs on proof of work, proof of memory, proof of “care”. Social networks that advertise convenience are at odds with this, and devalue the interactions. I believe this is why we’ve seen a fragmentation of networks and a migration to chat & private comms from public feeds (eg FB/IG) wdyt?
3 replies
6 recasts
21 reactions

BrixBountyFarm 🎩 pfp
BrixBountyFarm 🎩
@brixbounty
Think cancel culture plays a role as well here… folks wanting to limit public stances and statements. Would add the scale of ‘deep community’ is hard to achieve through the public feeds.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions

emilee pfp
emilee
@emilee
i agree with your sentiment here, particularly that fear-of-present-communications-being-re/misinterpreted-in-the-future is a very real limiting factor when sharing thoughts in public forums. this fear has become more prevalent in past years, and imo it does indeed make it hard to scale 'deep community' via public, group-based internet networks/forums i'd also add, though, that after 150-250 people (Dunbar's Number), we reach a psychological limit for feeling deeply connected with people, and that number should be considered carefully when designing and growing communities and/or platforms that support socializing. what works for a group of 100 doesn't work for a group of 1000 i'd like to clarify in my original cast, i was referring to social capital between individuals, rather than in the context of a group. nonetheless social capital does expand into the context of groups, and i'll eventually need to work that into my thinking as well. thanks! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions