social

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?

software, yapping, & asking "why?" 👩‍💻🎶🎤😴🔁

“proof of value (perceived or actual)” is such a good point

an example of what i meant by ‘convenience’ is “oh great all of my friends are on IG, I’ll post and everyone can see it!” rather than proof-of-work like “i texted *you* this picture because i want your take on it”

social capital also runs on proof of value (perceived or actual) as well.

i'm not clear on what you mean by "convenience" in this context though. can you shed some light on that?

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!

Growing veggies for the fine folks of Southeastern Massachusetts, w/ a focus on nutrient quality. Always interested in the evolution of digital payments.  🎩 

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

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.

Fixed UX Issues On Channels. 🚧 👨‍🦯 

↳ Improves Usability by removing dropdown.
↳ Reduces Clutter, making rules more accessible
↳ Amen Praise Jesus ❤️‍🔥 

View reply to see my expert documentation. Mint on Base, etc.

I Fixed Warpcaster's Channel Issue

Feedback on main post please!!

I Fixed Warpcaster's Channel Issue

Feedback on main post please!!

https://warpcast.com/metawavestudio/0x7a7f8994