Ask HN: Would you try an intellectually elitist social media? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Would you try an intellectually elitist social media?

7 pointsthrowawaynay14 comments

Hi!

Like many others, I quit almost all social medias over the years because of the rampant ignorance, toxicity, hostility, trolling, manipulations etc...

So I just had an idea, a social media where only really interesting people could contribute: artists, entrepreneurs, scientists, activists, writers, educators....

First of all, I don't want this to be a big circle jerk like Mensa or your local country club, but a place where truly exceptional people can talk about great ideas and create interesting content, without interference from 14yo trolls, propagandists, or just willfully ignorant people.

I'm not even remotely sure I'd make the cut depending on how selective it ends up being.

The vision I have for this is a place where people like Gandhi, Einstein, Picasso and Shakespeare could raise important questions, debate, share ideas or their work, and have interesting discussions about all kind of topics for everyone to see.

Anyone could access the website, but only vetted people could contribute.

I feel like HN is accidentally a bit like that, but only for engineers/tech entrepreneurs, I'd like to create something more diverse, I rarely see dumb stuff here, but it's mostly about a really narrow set of topics.

For the first wave of users, I'm thinking about a system where each aspiring user would post a small description to explain why they want to join, what they want to talk about, what they can contribute, with maybe links to their work, and we would all rate each other, then only the top 1%/5%/10%/20% would be allowed to join. I'm also thinking about a "weighted votes" system, where the highest rated you are, the more your ratings about other people counts, IDK if that's a good idea.

There could be either one or multiple communities with different levels of selectivity.

Also this may be controversial but I think the admins/moderators or some kind of "board"(which should be as diverse as possible) should be able to veto people, there is plenty of people with a cult-like following who could easily game the system, I don't think we'd want a Kardashian or a Trump joining.

What do you think? Would you apply or checkout the content if this came into existence?

Thanks for your feedback!

No freaking way. Elitist vetting of people is how we get walled gardens, the 1%, lack of diversity and perspective, and all kinds of inequality. Groups of people choosing who is better than others is also what bring us the flip side of that coin, with hatred, judgment, racism, white supremacy, etc.

Elitism is a bad thing, not a basis for a healthy community.

Yeah I was thinking echo chambers. I think its good to have an intellectually focused, but open discourse like HN. You get to read from the top minds, they get to read you and sometimes we meet in the middle!

When you say group of people, do you mean a small subset of people? Because I don't want that either. I want ALL of us to collectively choose a group of people that we consider better or more interesting than us in some way, or at least people worth listening to(or filtering the people not worth listening to)

"with hatred, judgment, racism, white supremacy, etc."

That's also why I want some carefully chosen people to be able to veto some people from registering, especially to block racists or other type of discrimination.

When you say 1% do you mean the richest 1%? That's not what I want either, there has been some attempts at that, and it sounds really lame.(like the "best of all worlds" social network)

The top 1% of thinkers, artists, change-makers and innovators doesn't seem that bad to me.

What do you think of things like the Solvay Conference? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solvay_Conference It's probably one of the most elitist gatherings on earth, is it a bad thing? or just very smart people working on and talking about complicated problems?

Or maybe(although it's likely more controversial), TED talks? If all the people who ever made Ted Talks got their own subreddit and started talking publicly in their free time I think it'd yield some interesting results.

Teaching is also elitist, but is it a bad thing that the only the best of us should be able to teach?(or at least be legitimate in that area)

I don't think you'd have a good community for long, and I don't think I'd want to join. however, it sounds like you hope to be able to gather up all the toxic, "holier than thou" Karen types who are so corrosive to other communities, and thats a good thing. So please do try. Have meetups. Advertise their location with enough precision for targeting.

>however, it sounds like you hope to be able to gather up all the toxic,"holier than thou" Karen types who are so corrosive to other communities

I want exactly the opposite of that, I really don't see how you came to that conclusion.

What did the average Karen achieve to be worthy of such a community?And more importantly who would vote for them to be a part of it?

The whole of point of it is for people like you or me to filter out the karens.

What makes you assume that 'exceptional' people would want to join such a network. What makes you assume that they are less toxic than your average persons (i.e. that the problems we see on social media are not linked to the medium itself)?

I'd join, because some people are more interesting than others. It requires a 'sufficient complexity' to be a person others find interesting. Some people's faces invoke a story in the viewers mind. Other people's overall persona, conversation skills, or dress. Less visually obvious interesting people need to create/produce things externally - painting, drawing, books, blogs, equations, code, videos, ... to demonstrate their capability. Though that doesn't necessarily make anyone an interesting person, it's for others to decide.

But hasn't all this been going on for millennia? The internet has accelerated the process, lowering the barrier to entry to a few keystrokes. It's a messy Darwinian process, ultimately shaped by a combination of meritocracy and social norms. Complicated by the fact that different people find different things interesting.

So, in conclusion, 'interesting peoples' sites exist, such as HN, Medium, Substack, TED, Stack Exchange, even TikTok. Beauty and interestingness is in the eye of the beholder. Like-minded people tend to find each other. To attract interesting people send some content into the ether world. But a site where the gatekeepers is one person or a board, and not a community, is a reflection of the gatekeepers, akin to a gallerist or a curator.

1. Don’t try to be the curator of an information bubble. It will be a lot of work and turning away users is a terrible business model.

2. Instead, build a platform where users can self organize into information bubbles.

3. Read up a little on graph/network theory. This is a deep subject, but even a little reading ought to spark some ideas.

4. Make a few models of your system and run simulations. It’s much easier to experiment with social network architectures in a simulation than in real life

Social media is a mess and there is no such thing as a curated freedom. This is the first thing to acknowledge. Some loose thoughts that came up while reading your post:

- What makes people interesting and how do imagine that being 'measured'?

- Pick one > I don't want this to be a big circle jerk > a place where people like Gandhi, Einstein, Picasso and Shakespeare could raise important questions,[...]

- Who's the gatekeeper? Who are you to judge?

I don't have the feeling you thought this through. It's good that you articulated your idea and put it together into a post, but as for your question: I don't think it would work nor would I join in.

Maybe an interesting question/ approach for you might be: Assume HN is NOT accidentally like this.

On a different note, HN is different to other social media and forums, but it is not as elite and filled with exceptional people as you indicated you think. I can only speak for myself with certainty but I can assure you, I'm not exceptional:)

>truly exceptional people

They don't use social media. Also,

>Picasso

Man was a hack who contributed to the downfall of a thousand year tradition and the loss of human knowledge. Compare him to Repin or Bouguereau or Solomon and tell me he's anything but a hack.

> artists, entrepreneurs, scientists, activists, writers, educators

All these people tend to be annoying.

Who's not annoying then? Entertainers?

About 9 out of 10 of the people that I find interesting are in one of those categories.

Reddit?

I don't really see how reddit is like that.

Ofc there is downvotes, but most people have throwaways anyways.

There is no vetting before you register, only after you angered enough people, and then you create another account.

And even if it's subjective, there is a lot of what I would call dumb people.

From antiscience to racism, sexism(on both sides), plain ignorance, trolling...

I honestly can't spend 5 minutes on reddit without getting angry and loosing faith in humanity.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com