Hacker News Reader

Comment by czhu12 | Hacker News Reader

Really heart warming story. My 2 cents:

The group is at a critical point now, having ~100 Whatsapp members. From what I've seen this creates a chilling effect where you inevitably end up with cliques and social cooling.

No new members will feel like they can actually send a message into a 100+ person group, while the old guard starts to use it as a notification board, rather than a real chat.

Eventually, newer members will feel too far behind the current discussions, and too socially exhausting to show up to meetups. I've seen these eventually get to 400+ members, many of whom don't live in the city anymore.

The best group I've ever been part of had a simple rule that worked amazingly: If you don't show up to an event at least once a month, you were removed from the whatsapp group. It keeps the group small, and comfortable, and it never felt intrusive to send a quick "Whats everyone up to today?" into the group chat.

View on HN

>while the old guard starts to use it as a notification board

It sounded to me like that’s been the intention since it was started. The in person meetings are the point and the whatsapp group exists to facilitate that.

> The group is at a critical point now, having ~100 Whatsapp members. From what I've seen this creates a chilling effect where you inevitably end up with cliques and social cooling.

The way to minimize this fear is by encouraging members to send welcoming messages to those new to the community. Celebrate the growth instead of fearing the unknown.

> No new members will feel like they can actually send a message into a 100+ person group, while the old guard starts to use it as a notification board, rather than a real chat.

If new members are made aware that sending a message to the group is perfectly acceptable, then there will be trepidation.

Much like what I am doing here to what I assume is a group exceeding 100+ members.

> Much like what I am doing here to what I assume is a group exceeding 100+ members.

Under an anonymous account to people you don’t have to see in person.

>> Much like what I am doing here to what I assume is a group exceeding 100+ members.

> Under an anonymous account to people you don’t have to see in person.

Does this lessen the fear of being rebuked when sharing thoughts in a public forum one values?

Perhaps it would for people whom enjoy trolling. I do not and have no reason to think you do either.

So we are left to stand on what we post here, with no other connection, no other commonality, only to accept each other for the thoughts we exchange.

> Does this lessen the fear of being rebuked when sharing thoughts in a public forum one values?

Absolutely. There is no threat of permanent harm. You just lose your karma count and make a new account

> Perhaps it would for people whom enjoy trolling. I do not and have no reason to think you do either.

Not related to trolling at all. It’s about being able to express opinions you genuinely believe without fear of effectively permanent retribution.

The protection that offers this is abused by trolls, but it doesn’t mean you don’t benefit from it when you are not a troll.

Think about something as basic as a gay man publishing about being gay while living in a country where that is illegal.

> So we are left to stand on what we post here, with no other connection, no other commonality, only to accept each other for the thoughts we exchange

We’re comparing to WhatsApp with your neighbors where everything you have said can be used against you in real life, reported to your employer, church, etc. It’s nothing like posting on an anonymous forum only attached to real life voluntarily and without verification

>> Does this lessen the fear of being rebuked when sharing thoughts in a public forum one values?

> Absolutely. There is no threat of permanent harm. You just lose your karma count and make a new account

This is a myopic definition of harm and one whose identified remedy is trivialization.

>> So we are left to stand on what we post here, with no other connection, no other commonality, only to accept each other for the thoughts we exchange

I was referring to interaction in this forum.

> We’re comparing to WhatsApp with your neighbors where everything you have said can be used against you in real life, reported to your employer, church, etc. It’s nothing like posting on an anonymous forum only attached to real life voluntarily and without verification

Everything a person SMS's, email, and/or speaks with neighbors "can be used against you in real life, reported to your employer, church, etc."

The medium used does not negate the possibility of treachery.

Finally:

  Think about something as basic as a gay man publishing 
  about being gay while living in a country where that is 
  illegal.

To which I retort; think about something as basic as an introvert making public their thoughts for unknown people to analyze, dissect, and formulate whatever response they like.

Maybe the severity of risks are specific to those who undertake them?

An introvert engaging in a conversation is not the same level of harm as someone’s life being destroyed because they are outed to a government.

> Maybe the severity of risks are specific to those who undertake them?

No. Your feelings getting hurt because someone said something mean about something you said that isn’t even attributable to your real identity is extremely low risk.

> Much like what I am doing here to what I assume is a group exceeding 100+ members.

This is not a group, we’re not all receiving a notification because of your message.

The context of what I said is important, even though I now realize I did not include the important determiner "less" (which I will add below).

>> If new members are made aware that sending a message to the group is perfectly acceptable, then there will be [less] trepidation.

>> Much like what I am doing here to what I assume is a group exceeding 100+ members.

> This is not a group, we’re not all receiving a notification because of your message.

My point was taking the risk of putting oneself "out there" for a group to see, not notification policies.

Often noted in other contexts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number

The WhatsApp group isn't the point though, seems largely secondary. This would continue to exist with or without the group.

> The group is at a critical point now, having ~100 Whatsapp members. From what I've seen this creates a chilling effect where you inevitably end up with cliques and social cooling.

I'd like to see an analysis of how and when group chats get so big they start to die.

This seems unnecessarily harsh toward people who like to travel.

I doubt you'd have much of an issue rejoining the group.

Yeah should've mentioned that, super easy to rejoin, just trying to prevent bloat

It’s harsh to be removed from a group chat around an event that you don’t attend monthly?

What would be your personal threshold for non-harsh?

I'm saying that I would generally avoid such a paradigm if I'm trying to make real, lasting friends and build a strong local community, given that I might disappear or travel for a month at a time.

It's great if other people are finding enjoyment in such a process, but it doesn't fulfill my personal goals, and it does indeed come across as harsh and unwelcoming toward non-hyperlocal or family-oriented people.

What would be your personal threshold for non-harsh?

That's a good question, I think it would have to be tuned around the size of the community and scale/frequency of activities, so it's hard to give a single number as a "persona" threshold.

I've been involved in creating local meetup groups before, I've found good people but I've also had these groups explode and turn into cliquey nightmares with people vying for soft power. I've personally had a relationship destroyed and have seen other relationships be destroyed because of these kinds of people. I've also started several online communities over the years since I was a child.

These experiences have made me think deeply about the role of moderation in communities, as well as the balance between preserving old institutions and allowing new ones to take root without alienating parts of the community.

So, to your point, I think it depends. Would the community suffer more from old-timers being cycled out too easily, or is it the kind of community where current participation matters most?

A primarily activity-based club might be ready to cut people more quickly, as they have a solid foundation for the group, perhaps even a charter, typically have specific leadership structure, and members can be interchangeable.

Whereas a certain kind of social group might value seniority and preservation of long-time members, and wouldn't want to cut them out of the conversation during periods of inactivity.

Maybe OP's group's limit of 1 month works well. Personally, for a social group, I'd consider 6-12 months to be on the short end of the scale.

I think things could also 'creep' in the other direction where the group communication becomes overwhelming. The article mentions that someone actually sold an item through the WhatsApp group. My worry would be that the WhatsApp group becomes and meetings turn into Craigslist, where it's people looking for dogsitters and Buy Nothing posts.

The point, if I have one, is that editing and saying no, especially with the technology, will help the group stay together. In person, obviously, neighbors can talk about whatever they like.

In my opinion a broadcast/newsletter would be the better fit for group communication.

Not coincidentally about the size of a US infantry company...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com