>Then how can you have a community that is welcoming to people who are not part of the ingroup?

Being welcoming to every random person is by definition not a community, it's a free-for-all mess.

A community means communal interests and values, it's in the name. And to guard those you can't just be accepting everyone without vetoing them. That's how it turns to a shit of spammers and trolls and people who want to hijack it and don't share the original cause/spirit. Has happened to forum after forum...

We are trying to make new immigrants feel at home. This is the purpose we gather around.

We were talking about online communities, but still, the same principle applies. If you just let anyone in, there eventually would be less there to feel "at home" about, and more of a disjointed and low trust number of individuals loosely held together by virtue of just being in the same place.

I agree with you. It’s the problem I can’t crack and it’s why I am letting the idea simmer for so long.

In the end, you need to filter people at the door. You need to keep unpleasant people out and shut down bad behaviour.

I figured that a paid, motivated moderator could be better than a web of trust for this demographic. Maybe enforce a stricter moderation standard on unvetted members. At my scale it might work.

> for whom no one can vouch

Spot the fed

What are you on about

I didn't mean to suggest that OP was a fed.

I'm suggesting that if you build an online community of immigrants to the US and you allow accounts for whom no one can vouch, at some point this mechanism will bring you an ICE agent.

You'd have to be brutal about culling, uninviting and removing anyone who doesn't look like a good fit.

Or have a two-stage process: run very public, very open events that anyone can sign up to an attend. And then invite specific people that you meet at those events that look like a good fit for your community to your private, community-only event.

This works if the goal is to create a funnel for making friends. I aim for something closer to Stack Overflow, where people gather to solve shared problems and help each other.

The closest analog I can think of is community-run bike repair workshops. Some people are deeply involved in, and others just have a flat tire.

The closest digital equivalent is the forums of old.

ok, but the same problem arises; how to weed out the people who are bad for the community.

I've worked in community-run bike repair workshops. The leader worked really hard to keep the place drama-free. Some people really like drama ;)

The forums of old were endlessly kicking and banning people, and that was before it was profitable to spam folks.

I think it's an inherently hard problem. The one I fear the most is not the toxic dirtbag; they just get banned. I'm more afraid of those who follow the rules but reliably kill the vibe. The internet has no equivalent to the whole room going quiet.

It's a lot harder to moderate bad actors if they can keep creating new accounts, too.

Agree, it is hard. I've built a few communities, and trust my gut; if something feels off about the vibe from someone, it probably is and I should be wary. But this becomes incredibly difficult (if not impossible) to put into rules, so if you're trying to build a community where you're not the beneficent dictator for life and there are published rules then you kinda have to accept that some people will play the rules and be dicks anyway.

I suppose policing an assembly of strangers is policing an assembly of strangers, both online and in real life.

Some will be fine providing their ID, others can be vouched by members who are fine providing their ID.

This preserves anonymity because for the latter because they’re only known to be “related” to the former, which is a vague hint at their real identity (e.g. they could’ve met in another online community). And the former don’t care, if they want they can vouch an anonymous alt.