Well said. In particular about the lowest common denominator and about the curious and clever. So moving it away from the Internet growing up and focusing on democratic societies, what do you think the conclusion is. What’s a better model than a non gatekeeping democratic one?

▲

JumpCrisscross 2 days ago | parent [-]

> what do you think the conclusion is. What’s a better model than a non gatekeeping democratic one?

Sort of the question for our generation. I wish I had an answer.

▲

SilverElfin 2 days ago | parent [-]

To get more specific - by which measurable trait would you gatekeep, if you would prefer gatekeeping? Age? Income? IQ? Some sort of social reputation score? Civics tests? What would lead to better choices but also avoid populist revolution?

▲

Mikhail_Edoshin 2 days ago | parent [-]

Real identities as a first step?

▲

MarkusQ 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> People are bastards in real life. People are angels anonymously.

This is exactly the opposite of my experience.

	▲	brabel 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		They must have mixed up the two?!! This is even a meme: the most measured person in real life being absolutely vicious online!

▲

JumpCrisscross 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> Real identities as a first step?

If we could answer the preceding question, we'd have solved society. People are bastards in real life. People are angels anonymously. (If anything, taking away real identities neuters the internet's celebrity tendency.)

The only gate with a track record is tendency towards exploration. When the internet was a frontier, it selected for curiosity and, if not intelligence, at least daring (for its own sake). When it became accessible, we got influencers.