Or you can have strong moderation and ownership. When that goes well, like HN, it's about as good as it gets in terms of being a mostly pleasant community to participate in. But that could all go away, if, say, YCombinator sold it to the Saudis or the Kardashians or whatever...
I can't for the life of me figure out why someone who was doing some genuinely cool stuff like rockets would want to get involved with something where even when it's working pretty well, people are going to complain about it and think it's unfair.
>Being controllable by one guy who does dumb stuff on a whim?
The entire twitterverse has been complaining loudly about how terrible twitter is for years before Musk considered buying it. The problems are inherent to the product-space, not the owner.
Musk simply came in and screwed with the brand. His ownership didn't really affect the toxicity of the platform as far as I can tell (although he has definitely contributed to it with his personal usage, e.g. dogecoin shilling). If anything, he actually took heat off the overall toxicity by shifting attention to his own actions.
Being controllable by one guy who does dumb stuff on a whim?
That's a tough, tough nut to crack, I think.
On one hand you can just make something totally open, and then it turns into a "hive of scum and villainy" and normal people don't want anything to do with it (something like: https://www.upworthy.com/bartender-explains-why-he-swiftly-k... )
Or you can have strong moderation and ownership. When that goes well, like HN, it's about as good as it gets in terms of being a mostly pleasant community to participate in. But that could all go away, if, say, YCombinator sold it to the Saudis or the Kardashians or whatever...
I can't for the life of me figure out why someone who was doing some genuinely cool stuff like rockets would want to get involved with something where even when it's working pretty well, people are going to complain about it and think it's unfair.