moderated Re: Web-only group #suggestion


Jim Higgins
 

Received from J_Catlady at 9/28/2018 01:11 AM UTC:
 
On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 05:38 PM, Jim Higgins wrote:
It also strikes me that such a group will lose any significant sense of community unless some sort of "Display Name" that would have no connection to the real life identity were required,

I totally disagree. All, or most, social media that uses handles instead of real IDs still create a significant sense of community.


I never said "real IDs." Those are your words... your straw man set up only to be shot down.

What I said was "some sort of 'Display Name' that would have no connection to the real life identity." You even quoted what I said above... and then seem to have completely ignored it in your response. So how about you give another look at what I said and then tell me how it differs from the "handle" you just mentioned.


Second, you may not want a "sense of community" in some situations. For example, I originally suggested the anonymous group idea for my business. I don't want the group members to know each other or be able to communicate with each other via email. (For the record, there were some "seconds" to the idea of that application.)


"Some sort of 'Display Name' that would have no connection to the real life identity" used to help create a sense of community would not allow group members to know each other or be able to communicate with each other via email. And nothing else I said/suggested would make it possible to be able to communicate with each other via direct email. In fact I suggested that Groups.io post messages to an anonymous group with the "From:" address replaced by the group address and with all potentially identifying headers stripped from the message. that would kill all possibility of direct email contact. Did you perhaps hit reply and fire off your response before reading that far?

Jim H

Join main@beta.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.