Back

@siderea

> I'm just a little dubious that I'm going to find value in anything that can be described with the framing of "those who are the community versus those who use the community".

Fair enough.

In case it makes things easier, Chapman's thesis is rather close to what you've been saying.

(1) A community is often founded by creators and enthusiasts for their creations. Basically a bunch of people who make a particular thing and those REALLY into it.

(2) As a community scales, it attracts people who want to use membership to leverage their own social capital. These are "influencer" wannabees and the like. This is still pretty ok with everyone.

(3) Eventually, if it gets big enough, somebody figures out how to monetize it. Invariably the business people take over. This CAN be ok for a good long while, but the business pressures toward the dark triad are significant.

(4) Then Cory Doctorow's famous en-<mumble>-ification process takes hold. (Chapman wrote back in the halcyon days of 2010, so he would not have used this term.)

(5) The founders wonder how that happened AGAIN, and begin an exodus to a new community.

You spoke of griefers, which is certainly one way this manifests.

Chapman & Doctorow speak of the more or less inevitable economic pressures, whether social capital or monetary capital. The naïveté of many of us in our geekier mode makes us easier exploitation targets.

I've personally seen that cycle 3 or 4 times. It starts to look pretty familiar; the question is whether it's inevitable.