|
Top-level
 No. I will not think small. Absolutely not. I could never be happy in a small social network. Not because I'm so wonderful and popular and everyone should listen to me, but rather small networks have fewer sub-groups. 200 people talking about math, but what about people talking about ants? 500? How much intersection? Large groups can contain more diverse subgroups. The stranger you are the bigger a network you will require. 3 comments
@futurebird @aral I think the two approaches are reconcilable. "Human subcultures are nested fractally" so we need social networks that mirror this structure. Little clubs inside bigger networks inside an enormous super-structure! @futurebird @aral big fish, small pond syndrome is heavy here. They think niche = special, small = order, and uniformity = peace. It's a recipe for extremely lazy groupthink. |
Gregory's Server
@futurebird @aral
This reminds me of a fairly harrowing period in my life, rearranging schedule for a public radio station.
Modernizing our schedule (existentially mandatory) needed "horizontal block" programming. Individual scattered hours of "special" content made this impossible.
There was a "woman's music" hour, each week. Easily found, more easily avoided. A ghetto of sorts.
Integration and embrace of "woman's music" into the entire schedule advanced everybody's cause. More for all.