Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Communities are not fungible

joanwestenberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 112 posts

Re: Communities are not fungible

#11

Post by DocTomoe »

testdelacc1 wrote: post #4

I agree with Joan here, communities aren’t fungible. Building something where something already exists does carry a cost. But I can also see how this will be used as one more arrow in the quiver of NIMBYs. In addition to environmental, economic, political reasons not to build something, also consider the cost to potentially breaking existing community bonds. We shouldn’t build new high density housing because the new…

If you are in America, that 'empty land' was not 'empty land'. It was Native land. Displacement of Native Americans was genocidal and destroyed communities and cultures.

Also, the article touches Moses, right, but it is about communities as a concept, with a heavy emphasis on online communities, where 'new things to buy' do not come at the expense of 'tearing down the old' - and where, when you tear down the old, behaviour patterns change. Take, for instance, the reddit re-design, which changed the page's culture. Or usage patterns of RSS post Google-Reader-shutdown.

Re: Communities are not fungible

#12

Post by JuniperMesos »

FranklinJabar wrote: post #9
testdelacc1 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in a city that consistently builds about 3-4% of the number of homes we need to build each year. We don’t build rail, we don’t electricity transmission infrastructure, all of which increases our cost of living. NIMBYs are doing great, I’d say.

> NIMBYs are doing great, I’d say. NIMBYs, or just typical anglo incompetence? How can you tell the difference? It's easy to blame other people for systemic dysfunction.

What do you consider to be anglo incompetence in dwelling construction that isn't NIMBYism?

Re: Communities are not fungible

#13

Post by FranklinJabar »

JuniperMesos wrote: post #12
FranklinJabar wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> NIMBYs are doing great, I’d say. NIMBYs, or just typical anglo incompetence? How can you tell the difference? It's easy to blame other people for systemic dysfunction.

What do you consider to be anglo incompetence in dwelling construction that isn't NIMBYism?

Owning land. Whoever came up with this idea needs to be hung and revived a million times, and then tortured to death a million more. Our society has been mutilated as a result.

I think you could ascribe this to either NIMBY or YIMBY harebrained thinking. We need a third option that's pro-human.

We need public fucking housing.

Re: Communities are not fungible

#14

Post by metalrain »

Communities also evolve and devolve with time even without large external event. Maybe you don't feel the same belonging in the friend group after ten years or community grows to become something it wasn't in the beginning.

Maybe you have to accept that communities are here and now, but they can dissolve at any time.

Re: Communities are not fungible

#16

Post by squeefers »

ajuc wrote: post #3

This is why open source for communication platforms is so important. Discord WILL disappear at some point and millions of people will lose their communities.

for discord emigres, teamspeak still exists, and for social media all you need is an old school forum that hosts videos and voila

Re: Communities are not fungible

#17

Post by ckardaris »

squeefers wrote: post #16
ajuc wrote: post #3

This is why open source for communication platforms is so important. Discord WILL disappear at some point and millions of people will lose their communities.

for discord emigres, teamspeak still exists, and for social media all you need is an old school forum that hosts videos and voila

The author of the article claims that a mere migration to a new platform does not solve the problem. It just fragments the community. I agree with that. For one or another reason not all people will migrate.

Re: Communities are not fungible

#18

Post by ckardaris »

Asooka wrote: post #15

[flagged]

I don't think the article proposes that a community should not accept new members. On the contrary, it critiques the breaking of communities.

Migrants or refugees have to find a new community because their old one was broken for whatever reason, be it war, financial troubles or something else. So in that case, that first breakage of community should have been prevented and the community preserved.

Re: Communities are not fungible

#19

Post by energy123 »

metalrain wrote: post #14

Communities also evolve and devolve with time even without large external event. Maybe you don't feel the same belonging in the friend group after ten years or community grows to become something it wasn't in the beginning. Maybe you have to accept that communities are here and now, but they can dissolve at any time.

Impermanence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impermanence

Re: Communities are not fungible

#20

Post by roenxi »

FranklinJabar wrote: post #13
JuniperMesos wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you consider to be anglo incompetence in dwelling construction that isn't NIMBYism?

Owning land. Whoever came up with this idea needs to be hung and revived a million times, and then tortured to death a million more. Our society has been mutilated as a result. I think you could ascribe this to either NIMBY or YIMBY harebrained thinking. We need a third option that's pro-human. We need public fucking housing.

You seem fairly keen on building public housing. Wouldn't that qualify you as a YIMBY? The YIMBYs are the lobby that tends to be pro-new-buildings.

If you want to build public housing, only the NIMBYs would really oppose the idea.

Post reply on HN