Jack sent me an email about "talking politics," which I will respond to directly. (And probably later. Mitzi's on her way home from Home Depot with a cabinet I'm going to have to assemble.)

What has prompted this post is something Amit Gawande posted in his blog, On Politics and Communities. And I think this has helped clarify, for me anyway, my feelings about "social" media and "communities," and the illusions we bring to these virtual spaces.

Amit writes:

After all, social media is a resource, just like a piece of land. You can set up any form of community on a piece of land—a country, a city, or a neighbourhood. With each having its own set of rules. Society functions best when you allow all of that. The same applies to social media. Every person who sets one up should be free to decide on its size and nature.

I don't think this is very clearly written, or well considered. Is "social media" a resource? In what context?

Before going much farther into that, this sentence is also rather amorphous, "You can set up any form of community on a piece of land."

Really? Who can? Who is "you"? I think what Amit's saying is that land is a resource that supports many different kinds of communities in the real world, and that there may be different rules depending on the type of community.

But, "Any form of community?" I'm not certain, since land is a real, finite and constrained resource; and to the best of my knowledge, virtually all of it is governed by a set of rules the proverbial "you" Amit refers to will be constrained by. Else, why would tech-bro billionaires want to set up floating islands where they can indulge in their libertarian Lord of the Flies fantasies?

I don't know what Amit means when he writes "society functions best when you allow all of that." I think he's referring to different forms of community, based on scale maybe? Country, city, neighborhood? Though again, I'm unclear as to who "you" would be to "allow" that.

There are "communities" that aren't geographically defined. I'm thinking of "communities of practice," where professionals interact together to advance the interests of their profession, and presumably the people they serve. These are more like the virtual communities of "social media." They share professional interests in common, some of which might be considered "intellectual property."

I live in a "gated community," not only is it gated, it's age-restricted. You have to be over-55 to own a home here. It has a "homeowners association," which includes a set of governing documents that outline the rules that tell you, very specifically, how you're allowed to live here. To be frank, it often chafes. But "we made the choice," right? Except there are very few homes being built these days in Florida that aren't in an association. So, even "choice," is a constrained resource.

Part of the reason, and I'm not saying it's a good reason, why these kinds of communities are so tightly regulated is because many people regard their home as their most significant investment, and they don't want their "property value," to be adversely affected by the quirks and predilections of their neighbors.

Similarly, perhaps, professional communities don't want to see their "intellectual property" values depreciated, so they have professional standards and licensure to exclude people who may wish to "practice" within the domain of that professional community, but whose quirks and predilections may adversely affect the reputation of the profession, and presumably the people they serve.

Ivermectin, anyone?

But with Mastodon and similar applications and protocols, individuals privileged with the knowledge and material resources can set up small instances of "social media," and then impose rules. "My house, my rules."

Okay, sure. But that's not a "community." That's your house.

And it's not about fostering a sense of community, it's about hosting a party where the guests are only present at the pleasure and indulgence of the host. There is no shared interest among the other guests that are intended to be advanced by attending that "house party." Maybe they all like photography or they're all passionate about the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but there is no shared interest that they are working together to advance. They're all just guests at the host's party and when the host says, "Party's over! Get the fuck out!"

Well, that's the end of that "community."

I live in a gated community. My wife likes the gates. She doesn't agree with me when I say, "Gates only inconvenience honest people."

I have to say, I actually appreciate some of the rules. You can't fly a Trump flag from your house. I wouldn't mind one or two or three. But if they allowed it, most of the place would be festooned with them. That gets pretty oppressive. (They default to flying the American flag. Last election, they lined the streets. Nearly every house. Once Trump lost, more than 90% of them disappeared. I'm trying to recall when they appeared in 2020. So far, they haven't shown up yet.)

And since I do live here, not just type its address in a browser window, it's more pleasant when we can maintain some sense of comity with one another, and that particular rule seems to help foster that.

As a career naval officer, I understand rules and order and have no problem with them in their appropriate context. "We don't discuss politics or religion in the wardroom."

I do think we ought to be a little more clear about our terminology. These social media instances are not "communities," virtual, online or otherwise. I suppose they could be. A community of interest might use that network infrastructure to support the work of the community, but that's not what much of this discussion has been about.

These bespoke social media instances are not communities, and calling them that is self-aggrandizing.

They're more like house parties.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Originally posted at Nice Marmot 13:37 Friday, 2 August 2024