Work out how to destabilise the system you've identified.
Invented more like.
In the end, mass communication will encourage more long links between groups, not the opposite.
So, let's review the facts
1. People form tribes locally, which are often by nature exclusive. 2. People form non-local tribes online, which usually non-exclusive. (You don't even have to use the same identity) 3. People have a wide variety of interests, sharing a varying amount with friends.
The interests you can share in a group depends on the social norms, but with some anonymity on the internet, really fucking bizzare stuff happens.
I.e.: weird sexual fetishes. There are many things you're normally the only one interested, but there is almost someone else as obsessed as you are on the internet.
The things everyone have in common aren't clearly defined, and are often vague. My political view is not your political view, but we have a large intersection at times. Although there clear political divisions on many topics, it's foolish to think it's the same people on each side every time.
I don't think people will try to form closed systems, avoid contact with others, unless it's a cult. Even so, cults aren't all powerful or controlling. The occasional outed gay fundamentalist should confirm this.
I argue that the daily-me won't break up the groups, it will encourage more weak links between people.
Look at your livejournal friends list. You've got a number of distinct groups of friends who all know each other, and usually one or two random friends that noone else has.
![[personal profile]](http://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
gominokouhai's journal
(no subject)
Date: Fri, Dec. 29th, 2006 04:18 (UTC)Invented more like.
In the end, mass communication will encourage more long links between groups, not the opposite.
So, let's review the facts
1. People form tribes locally, which are often by nature exclusive.
2. People form non-local tribes online, which usually non-exclusive. (You don't even have to use the same identity)
3. People have a wide variety of interests, sharing a varying amount with friends.
The interests you can share in a group depends on the social norms, but with some anonymity on the internet, really fucking bizzare stuff happens.
I.e.: weird sexual fetishes. There are many things you're normally the only one interested, but there is almost someone else as obsessed as you are on the internet.
The things everyone have in common aren't clearly defined, and are often vague. My political view is not your political view, but we have a large intersection at times. Although there clear political divisions on many topics, it's foolish to think it's the same people on each side every time.
I don't think people will try to form closed systems, avoid contact with others, unless it's a cult. Even so, cults aren't all powerful or controlling. The occasional outed gay fundamentalist should confirm this.
I argue that the daily-me won't break up the groups, it will encourage more weak links between people.
Look at your livejournal friends list. You've got a number of distinct groups of friends who all know each other, and usually one or two random friends that noone else has.
Netcraft confirms it: Your theory is dying.