Lately, I've been thinking about Communities.

Thread 👇🏽

A community is where people with similar interests hang out. They feel a sense of identity. They feel at home.

In a community, people share common values. They feel identified.
When you build a community, you host the conversation. When you build and show you have an audience. It's not bad, but It's not great.

A community is a two-way avenue. An audience is a one-way street.
With a community you will get better feedback, and new ideas.

With an audience, you are going to push content not ideas.

You can't value your community on metrics. Each user will have a different experience. It's Subjective.
People hang out in a place because they are learning or they are having a good time. Aim to entertain or teach.

Build a space where people want to be.
Develop weekly and daily rituals to keep your users engaged.

Create content that people want to consume, "Breakthrough Knowledge". It's not all about the free promo-codes.
Work with smaller groups to grow new ideas. Exchange feedback about their projects and your projects.

People are in your community because they find value in your product or your brand. Encourage users to talk about their interests.
Make your users engage in the conversation, bring value, and grow new ideas.

Your community will help you build new products.

Users will guide you about what you should be building.

Ask. Ask. Listen. Execute.
Thanks to @gregisenberg @theSamParr @Conaw @visakanv @david_perell @austin_rief for all your insights on community building!

More from Society

Two things can be true at once:
1. There is an issue with hostility some academics have faced on some issues
2. Another academic who himself uses threats of legal action to bully colleagues into silence is not a good faith champion of the free speech cause


I have kept quiet about Matthew's recent outpourings on here but as my estwhile co-author has now seen fit to portray me as an enabler of oppression I think I have a right to reply. So I will.

I consider Matthew to be a colleague and a friend, and we had a longstanding agreement not to engage in disputes on twitter. I disagree with much in the article @UOzkirimli wrote on his research in @openDemocracy but I strongly support his right to express such critical views

I therefore find it outrageous that Matthew saw fit to bully @openDemocracy with legal threats, seeking it seems to stifle criticism of his own work. Such behaviour is simply wrong, and completely inconsistent with an academic commitment to free speech.

I am not embroiling myself in the various other cases Matt lists because, unlike him, I think attention to the detail matters and I don't have time to research each of these cases in detail.

You May Also Like