Friedkin's Madness

Fridkin on the French Connection chase:

“[Stunt driver] Bill Hickman drove the car at 90 miles an hour,” Mr. Friedkin recalled. “I was in the back seat holding a camera over his shoulder, focused on the street ahead. There was a camera in the front seat looking out the window, and another one on the front bumper. The reason I handled the camera was because the camera operator and the director of photography both had families with children, and I didn’t.” [...]

“We took off, with Billy telling Bill Hickman, ‘Give it to me, come on, you can do it, show me!’ ” Mr. Jurgensen said in an interview. “We had a police siren on top that people could hear, so that those who were able to get out of the way, could.”

There were no permits and no planning — just sheer nerve. “After 26 blocks, from Bay 50th to Bay 24th Street, I ran out of film, but I knew I had enough,” Mr. Friedkin said. “The fact that we never hurt anybody in the chase run, the way it was poised for disaster, this was a gift from the Movie God. Everything happened on the fly. We would never do this again. Nor should it ever be attempted in that way again.” #

In case you missed it, the new 'signature' blu-ray release that came out late last year fixes the pastel madness of the previous blu-ray release.

Once Upon a Time in Georgian England

In his (fantastic) biography on Sergio Leone, Something To Do With Death (p299), Christopher Frayling writes about Once Upon a Times in the West:

Stanley Kubrick admired the film as well. So much so, according to Leone, that he selected the music for Barry Lyndon before shooting the film in order to attempt a similar fusion of music and image. While he was preparing the film, he phoned Leone, who later recalled: 'Stanley Kubrick said to me, "I've got all Ennio Morricone's albums. Can you explain to me why I only seem to like the music he composed for your films?" To which I replied, "Don't worry. I didn't think much of Richard Strauss until I saw 2001!" Barry Lyndon could have been Once Upon a Time in Georgian England: the music, the choreography, the deliberate pace, the ritualized duels. Leone reckoned, though, that maybe Kubrick didn't quite have the common storyteller's touch to pull it off.

It's a Wrap

What a week. Between being displaced from Manhattan by Frankenstorm Sandy, me having a flight out of JFK thursday, the seemingly non-stop tech industry news, with Forstall leaving Apple topping the roster and the 17th floor bucket brigade it's all a bit overwhelming.

And suddenly a new contender, out of left field, the announcement that Disney has bought LucasFilm for $4 billion dollars. Wow.

Shocking, though perhaps not surprising, if that makes any sense. On the one hand it's nearly impossible to imagine especially Star Wars without George Lucas at the helm, whatever you may think of the course he set. On the other, for what Star Wars is today, and considering the long-standing relationship between the two companies — Star Tours, break dancing Darth Vader, merchandizing cross over and of course Disney's extensive use of ILM on their feature films, like Pirates, The Avengers and John Carter — Disney is without a doubt the most fitting parent for a displaced Lucasfilm.

On second glance, it's a staggering deal. Remember, this isn't 'simply' Star Wars; it's all of Lucasfilm, including the Indiana Jones franchise, and films like Willow and of course Howard the Duck, as well as companies like Lucas Licensing, Lucas Books, ILM and Skywalker Sound and all of the rights associated with them.

I don't know whether that also includes films like American Graffiti and THX 1138 though I don't believe that's the case as they were produced by American Zoetrope. As for Lucas's student films, who knows? And what about the Skywalker Ranch facilities? After all Skywalker Sound lives in the facilities at Skywalker Ranch, whereas ILM and LucasArts reside in their (relatively new) facilities at the Presidio in San Francisco.

Also, consider that this means that Disney now owns not just their own extensive back catalog, but Pixar, The Muppets, Marvel and Lucasfilm, as well as the arguably most advanced production facilities in the world.

Wow.

It's shocking, but perhaps not surprising, because aside from getting up in years, Lucas has also been lambasted by his so-called fans in recent years, and as he himself said in a recent New York Times interview: “Why would I make any more, when everybody yells at you all the time and says what a terrible person you are?”#. And mind you, this is from the guy who for years never acknowledged the more, shall we say, verbal part of his fan base. Between the critical reception of the new Star Wars and Indy movies and the economic reception of Red Tails, it was beginning to look like a perfect time to cut your losses and finally retire into making those long awaited small personal films.

Although heralded ahead of time, Lucas handing over the Lucasfilm reins to Kathleen Kennedy was in itself a historical shift — she is certainly a fantastic choice for the part, having a hell of a pedigree to her name — but, for him to disengage entirely is so shocking precisely because his entire life has revolved around that very same control of his franchises and companies. The reason all of the Lucas industries exist at all is precisely because Lucas got burned by lack of control on his early films and struck back by constructing his own filmmaking empire in northern California.

My initial reaction to the announcement that Disney was already planning the seventh installment for a 2015 release, was that they had been to rash. But despite earlier beliefs to the contrary, it now seems that "Fox owns distribution rights to the original Star Wars, No. 4 in the series, in perpetuity in all media worldwide. And as for the five subsequent movies, Fox has theatrical, nontheatrical and home video rights worldwide through May 2020."# Which would explain why Disney is eager to get started on their own roster of films as soon as possible.

Also, that article mentions that back when Disney first acquired the rights to use the Star Wars characters in their parks, Lucas sold the rights $1 million a year, in perpetuity. That's almost unbelievably cheap; but maybe he simply saw it as a way to keep up the steam to the Star Wars engine? After all, while the special editions were sold as Lucas finally fulfilling his vision, in reality the continued meddling with the movies probably has a lot more to do with keeping Star Wars alive as franchise. Remember, Lucasfilm Licensing is the company that makes the dough; the films themselves, while certainly profitable, are incidental to the real cash cow.

Either way, the rights for Star Wars as we know it must be a gordian knot of epic proportions. After all, is the theatrical edition the same as the special edition, or the blu-ray edition? And while Fox retains the distribution rights, what does that mean in terms of updated versions? Or indeed un-updated versions? The inevitable discussions around a properly restored theatrical release are already exploding across the internet, and while some take Fox's distribution rights to mean that they control the print, there's nothing that has indicated that to be the case so far. And keep in mind, that Fox has done right by most of the major franchise films otherwise in their catalog, the likes of the Alien franchise, releasing some of the best possible blu-ray sets on the planet. They were not the ones holding back a theatrical release.

Just on the topic of restoring the original films to their original glory, Disney has matured over the last decade as a feature film company with Pirates, John Carter and The Avengers, but it is still largely a kiddy-pool company. It seems content to serve up the stuff kids want, which in turn forces parents to dig up the wallet. Great strategy, obviously, but not one that is conducive to progress on the whole 30-40-year-olds getting their beloved theatrical release out in any kind of modern, restored format.

But in the long term, unless Lucas left behind stipulations about maintaining the movies in their current deplorable state, I think chances are good that we'll see some sort of arrangement over the next few years. Either near the end of the current format cycle, or as an opener for the new one.

Whatever the case, lawyers and decision makers at Disney and Fox are going to become well acquainted with one another over the next few years as they page through the yacht catalogs together.


Disney's a good home, exactly because the pantheon of 70s and 80s movies that Star Wars was surrounded by — the ones that Lucas and Spielberg in particular were making — were themselves heavily indebted to the spirit of the kinds of movies Disney built the mouse house on. The loss of course is that the main canon of the movies, were always 'personal' films, in the sense that they came from Lucas. That was the hallmark of many of those early blockbusters; that they were personal films, conceived and willed into life by sheer will by their creators. But that's a side of Star Wars, and I think of Lucas in general, which with every subsequent release became more and more at odds with the business side of LucasFilm.

It's a precarious situation, which I think receives too little in the way of understanding from the more cynical 'fans'. But consider just how big the LucasFilm empire is, and that the movies themselves are the fuel that keeps the engine going.

Also, just as an aside, it's fun to note how interconnected all of this is. Not only has Disney and Star Wars had a lot of crossover merchandising for years, but Pixar sprung from Lucas's first attempts at digital filmmaking, Marvel jumped into bed with Star Wars for the comic books as early as the late 70s and The Muppets have had several similar Star Wars crossovers (and of course a certain 3' green jedi master).

It's also worth keeping in mind that Disney's treatment of The Muppets seem to have been vindicated by the latest feature film, which was a big success, as was I think it was fair to say, their take on The Avengers. John Carter may have bombed, and while it isn't a great film per se, it wasn't for lack of commitment on Disney's part, which poured all the money in the world into it and gave Andrew Stanton largely free rein over its production and marketing!

Between the recognition of Star Wars having long since moved from being the magic trilogy of movies many of us grew up with, into a broader all-media entertainment brand, and the A for effort and pretty good execution Disney has shown over the past decade, I don't see any reason to not be optimistic about their future endeavors with it.

Will it be my Star Wars? Probably not, but then again, what would?

Flash!

This summer, in Paris, I picked up two old reprints of Alex Raymond's Flash Gordon comics (pictured on the right), and a few days ago I bought the new, stunning reprint from IDW (on the left). And the difference is just staggering. Not only were the panels rearranged for the old edition, but the colors are horrendous and the text is actually slighly different between the two! I have no idea why, but there you go.

But, worst of all, the panels in the right-hand edition have actually been recropped from the original. Pay attention to the first panel, which has been cropped, and the panel with Zarkov in his lab, which has been extended.

Boom Tchhh. Mwaaauumm, mwau-mwaaauummmm

New recreation of the Blade Runner soundtrack on its way.

BuySoundtrax Records seeks to rectify that, with this new recording faithfully recreating the original music from the film, which proved a difficult task. Vangelis' score was composed entirely by performing on keyboards and recording it directly, so no written transcriptions exist. Edgar Rothermich was charged with reverse engineering the score–listening to the original music and a 1982 album mock-up and transcribing it by ear. He also had to recreate the sound of 1982 synthesizers and decipher if noise heard was due to recording on tape or stylistic choices by the composer.

John Williams on the Special Editions

In a January, 1997 interview, that is, prior to the April/May releases.

CB: These films are classics. Why tinker with them now?

JW: Well, this is a very interesting question. If the Star Wars Trilogy is a kind of classic, why would we want to tamper with it? I'm not particularly in favor of coloring all the old early films in black and white and might come down on the side of saying, leave things alone. That's one side of the argument.

The other side of it is true for music also. For example, every time Brahms went to hear one of his symphonies played, he would go in the audience and listen to the symphony, and the next day he would go to the Bibliotheque in Vienna, get the original score out and make changes—he never could leave it alone. Some sage said that a work of art is never finished, it's only abandoned. That's really true of all of us; it's like one of our children. You never finish trying to groom it; the child could be 60 years old, and you're still saying, "Well you look better if you dress this way."

So I think George is well within the predictable and understandable and probably correct area of an artist's prerogative to continue to try to want to improve what he's done. He complained that he didn't have the animatics 20 years ago and he wants to do it now. So I think on the one hand don't tamper with it, and on the other an artist can, should and, I think, must be excused for wanting to continue to improve his or her work. That's the two answers.

The third answer could be for those traditionalists who want the original the way it is—it's there. They don't have to go; they can listen to the Brahms without his latest edition. So they can see the original version and they can also see the new, updated George Lucas wish-list for his work.

I think it's a wonderful question and the answer has to admit all of these possibilities for us to be fair.

So, there's that.

The Amazon Doctrine

I was watching the Amazon Kindle event as I was eating my breakfast, and aside from it being a great event, one thing in particular jumped out at me as pretty sound business advice, especially in today's world, where starting businesses without knowing how to make money from them seems to be the order of the day (and the perfect way to spot whether you should trust a service):

When did Amazon last make a move that screwed you over as a customer in the name of profit?

No, I can't think of anything either, because their profit is making you a happy consumer! How novel.

And while I do think Jeff Bezos is overplaying the competitiveness of the Kindle Fire versus the iPad (by a lot), at least I trust the company because I understand our relationship.

Some part of me can't help but admire the purity of the clusterfuck that is Twitter's continued downward trajectory from startup wunderkind to some sort of bland, wannabe ad-driven media company.

It's incomplete, but I can't help but draw comparisons between Twitter's alienation of their original users and ecosystem to, because I am me, Star Wars.

Despite what George Lucas says, the continuing alterations to Star Wars have been driven by business reasoning, not some artistic auteur need to see the vision completed. And in both cases, the original fan base is the one getting run over, while the unwashed masses get to enjoy Jar Jar and Justin Bieber, respectively.

Never mind the irony and complete lack of insight it takes to essentially lock out third-party developers — the very people who practically invented modern-day Twitter (thinking anything else is delusional).

Now Twitter considers its website the canonical Twitter. John Gruber recently asked an Apple representative about why clicking a Twitter notification sent you to the website rather than to the client app, and learned that Twitter had specifically requested that be the (unalterable) behavior. And now it's effectively getting rid of its desktop client.

I understand that Twitter wants to control the stream with regards to showing ads, and I can even understand why they clamp down on their API to safeguard their social graph from hostile takeovers. I get it.

But aside from the development cost of keeping a desktop client alive, something which they haven't given two shits about for years anyway, why not keep the client? They control its stream as much as anywhere else. It's completely in their control. Arguably more so than the website which given a touch of CSS is out of their control.

It may take years, but if it really is Twitter's intent to kill the desktop client, it will definitively mark the end of my use of the service. The API changes hurt me on principle, but killing the desktop clients actually hurts my practical use of Twitter as a service. Most days I'll have the client open on my secondary monitor and occasionally glance at the stream to see what's going on out in the world as I work. Contrast with Facebook, which I open maybe twice a day unless I specifically receive a notification.

Which do you think I interact with more often?

And despite their best engineering efforts, having to wait for the browser to load up Twitter.com will forever be considerably slower than the instant action of switching to the client. Never mind that I don't give a flying intercourse about 'Who to Follow' and 'Trending Topics' nonsense that is continually shoved down my throat. #foiegrasjokehere

I get the attempt to control the stream in an effort to monetize it. I get the need to control the third-party space from the risk of a 'trojan horse'-like hostile takeover.

I don't get how the desktop client can't be a part of that. I don't get how this will help the Justin Bieberification of Twitter. But most paradoxically, I don't understand why Twitter has started sending out "What's going on with your Twitter" emails when the whole fucking service is supposed to be about that!

In closing, Twitter, you have gone insane, and you should seek professional help.

PS: How are mentions and DMs read/unread status still not synced? How are billions of tweets every day without the capacity to to flip a fucking a bit? Man up.

FOSS Patents on Apple vs Samsung

FOSS Patents has a great post about the Apple vs Samsung verdict, summarizing:

Samsung has issued a statement that claims this jury verdict is a loss for consumers. But things are more complex than that. There can be no reasonable doubt that Samsung and Google have engaged, and continue to engage, in "copytition" (competing through copying) rather than wholly-independent creation. Somewhere the courts have to draw the line and afford some degree of protection to innovators. I don't always agree with Apple's claims, and I don't like all of Apple's patents, but the kind of disregard for other companies' intellectual property that Samsung and Google effectively propose is certainly not the answer.

Hunches and Hearsay

I agree with the point of Dustin Curtis's Black Widow:

Twitter was built on the backs of the very developers it is now blocking. It now expects those developers to continue supporting Twitter by syndicating content into its platform, but it no longer wants to provide any value to developers in return.

(Though, I would have ended on "to those developers in return", as Twitter seems more than happy to have three of the four infamous quadrants do their thing; you know, the ones where the users of Twitter are the product being sold?)

But I had to object against the initial argument that Twitter's social graph outshines Facebook's, which was the stepping stone Dustin uses to get to his conclusion. I took to Branch to talk with Dustin about this a bit, but would like to elaborate here, in proper form.

Twitter has an enormous advantage over Facebook in one key area: while people on Facebook tend to friend their friends, people on Twitter tend to follow their interests.

There are many people and brands that I identify with, like or lean towards that I don't follow on Twitter. Why? Because following them on Twitter means putting up with their Tweets. Some of them are simply obnoxious retweeters, some are just noisy or irrelevant to my interests on any given day. But in many cases I like your album, but don't care what you had for breakfast. And because Twitter has no tools for me to manage this, relationships on Twitter remain binary, you either follow, or you don't. Mentions and hashtags provide some semblance of an expanded relationship metric, but it's almost impossible to get intent from a mention. Did I agree with this person? If I did, am I more likely to subscribe to O Magazine?

Contrast with Facebook. They know your age, your marital status, your family, your friends, your high school, college, current and previous places of work, who you most interact with, which locations you've checked into and with who, as well as which people you generally appear in photos with. And they have Likes. Universally scorned by the technorati, the Like button is a veritable stroke of genius, as a fire-and-forget way of defining who you are to the people who follow you. Show me a single Firefly fan who hasn't liked Firefly on Facebook, or a single Apple fan who hasn't liked Apple. Likes are a way for people to define themselves, and as such they are perfect for refining a social graph (where refining means "monetize").

And what's more, Facebook provides users with tools to filter their stream. Don't like a person? Mute them. Don't like a brand? Mute it. It's exceptionally simple. You can Like a band, yet not have their crap fill your stream needlessly.

Dustin countered in our Branch discussion that:

I only have one counterpoint to your response, but it's a really big one: Facebook ads are terrible. Every report about them is negative. They have horrific click-through rates. On the other hand, I've heard that Twitter ads are extremely effective. What does that say about the respective graphs?

To which I replied

Well, it's hard to say what it says about the graphs. It might just as well say something about the complexity of Facebook's site vs the simplicity of a tweet stream. Or it might say something about the business intelligence team at Facebook vs the one at Twitter. Or the audience. It could be any number of things really.

More data is more data. What you do with that data, and who your advertisers are is as important as the kind of data you have access to. Personally I find that all ads are terrible, and I can't remember the last time I clicked one; but then again maybe our ilk are no longer a target audience worth bothering with?

In any case, if I may be so bold for a moment, I find the tendency to bolster arguments, ill-conceived or not, with unverified factoids a dangerous path to go down. Rumors mills abound in the tech world as it is, so when I see something like this:

This is why it has been shown that the vast majority of Twitter users who sign up never tweet, even though a huge number of those people view their feed often.

I instantly have my inner judge strike it from the record, because it amounts to nothing but hearsay. Where's the source? What's the evidence? I think it's right, but where the evidence to back it up? Twitter thinking of itself as a broadcast medium certainly rings true following their recent insanity. But asserting it — and this becomes more true the bigger your bullhorn is — without backing it up? No bueno.

25-5-77. It's Your Turn.

There's a film, it's called 5-25-77 and it's by this guy, Patrick Read Johnson. And it's been gathering dust for years because studios don't believe in it. But I do, and I've wanted to see it since the moment I saw the magnificient trailer, which to this day brings a little tear of nostalgia to my eye. I've talked about it many times, and I even wrote Patrick several times, because that's how obnoxious I am about this film.

You know who helped produce this film? Gary Kurtz. That's right. Gary 'I made Star Wars awesome' Kurtz. If he believes in this film, so can you.

I don't ask you for much, except to get off my lawn. But, just this once, please, get out your wallet, and donate. Make this happen.

A $50 Message

Maybe App.net will become something great, maybe it won't; I'm really fine either way. I don't want to leave Twitter as much as give it a wake up call, of the R. Lee Ermey variety.

For a company which has consistently reaped the benefits of its developer community to the extent as Twitter has, it seems completely ludicrous for it to then turn around and squash that self-same community without once thinking: "Hey, wait a minute, where is our innovation supposed to come from now?"

After all, while Twitter is filled to the brim with smart people, I can't quite figure out what they do. There have been great architecture improvements over the years; the fail whale is today an endangered species. But I don't mean to be an ass when I ask you to consider how rarely the desktop and iPad clients are updated, or when they last introduced a useful new feature…

The first desktop and mobile clients were third party, the @ mentions, the word 'tweet' was third party, #-tags and RT syntaxes were 'third party', search was bought from a third party if I'm not mistaken and the Twitter logo itself was first made for a third-party client!

If one were an ass, one might be tempted to ask if Twitter is even capable of innovation from inside its walls?

So I give my $50 to App.net not because I really want to use it over Twitter, but because I hope that it sends a message to a company which has completely lost its way.

Signed,
Michael Heilemann
Twitter User #11656

PS: How many hundreds of employees does it take to do something as stupidly simple as sync unread counts across clients?

Most People Look Like Idiots

A post in The Verge's forums recently went after Apple's retina displays, proclaiming that not only did Apple squander the retina display by simply providing too many pixels, thus draining the battery unnecessarily, but the Surface Pro was better and blah blah blah.

It's a thorough analysis in all but one small detail, namely the distance at which people use their mobile devices. Not only does he assert at what distance he assumes people use these devices (15-22"/38-55cm), he asserts that if you do anything else, "you look like an idiot".

Let me count the ways in which I look like an idiot:

  1. When I'm in bed, with the iPad resting on my chest, just around my nipples at less than 10", I look like an idiot.
  2. When I'm sitting at my desk, head in my hand with my iPad flat on the desktop, at about 12", I look like an idiot.
  3. When the iPad is in its dock on the kitchen counter and I'm leaning in to read a recipe, I look like an idiot.
  4. When I sit in my couch, with a pillow in my lap and the iPad on top of it, I look like an idiot.
  5. When I'm talking to my wife on FaceTime, and I pull the iPad closer because I miss her, I look like an idiot.

And so on…

Maybe I'm just an idiot who doesn't know how to use his iPad. On the other hand, maybe RobbCab should worry less about equations and more about real world usage?

The White Flight, Grounded

A discussion about elitist online communities and platforms has taken flight, with some people growing increasingly concerned at the implications of online communities that aren't immediately available to anyone and everyone. It's simmered, but I first really picked it up when I read Anil Dash's post You Can’t Start the Revolution from the Country Club. I love Anil, he's a super smart guy, and I've followed him for many years. But he's wrong in asserting that services like Svbtle and App.net trend towards a larger non-egalitarianism. And that they form country club-like organizations, which once seeded with this elitist culture, will perpetuate it ad infinitum, causing a socio-economic rift in its user base and the inevitable mono-culture.

This discussion seems to stem from an insensitive, inarticulate and unthoughtful post on PandoDaily about App.net, which argued that the problem with Twitter was/is…

Everyone was allowed on, which is great, but at the same time, everyone was allowed in. As PandoDaily contributor Francisco Dao told me recently, every open system degrades over time, due to the quality of the incoming participants. (He also used the word “cockroaches,” but that’s a different story.)

The problem was never the people who started using Twitter, it was and continues to be, Twitter's inability to keep both new and old users happy at the same time.

Anil doesn't mention this article, letting the accusation fall on no one in particular, a space in which it's a little too easy to make up arguments. But he cites two other posts that essentially boil down to "white, well-educated people only want to hang out with other white, well-educated people, and it's a problem". Yet somehow in all of this hemming and hawing no one ever points out that the reason these services — in western markets — are seeded with white male techies, is probably because that is the overwhelming demographic markup of techies! They are mostly male. They are mostly white.

Ideal? Of course not! Should it change? Yes. But the arguments put forward conflate so many issues that it's almost irresponsible. Not to mention that even if the notion of non-free or closed services as 'country clubs' was agreeable, it's at most indicative of a symptom, not a cause. It might perpetuate the problem, but given Twitter's alienation of certain users, how is not building alternative a solution? It's not like App.net takes your race, color and creed before allowing you access; it simply asks you to pay for the service. It seems like an almost alien notion in today's world, that a company would have, gasp, a business plan. Here we are, so used to companies with free platforms flailing around while they try to monetize their popularity, until they inevitably settle on their users as their products. Yay open. Yay inclusion.

But worst of all is the comparison with 'the white flight'; a comparison which violently twists the words 'unwanted people' from 'trolls, spammers and jerks' into a socio-political-laden remark brimming with race and class implications.

Excuse me, but… what… the fuck?

PandoDaily's Trevor Gilbert completely misrepresents and then oversimplifies his misrepresentation of the problems facing Twitter in comparison to its early days, and from that a discussion about race and class is zapped into life like some grotesque Frankenstein creation?

I haven't heard a single person talking about App.net mentioning the population of Twitter as being the problem. It all comes down to their policy changes and continuing disregard for the needs of the tech crowd over the general population somewhere in-between leaving their apps to rot while crippling competitors, the dickbar, trending topics, degrading DMs and still (still!) not syncing mentions and DM unread counters. Different groups have different needs, and that the needs of tech nerds are different than those of Justin Bieber fans can come as a surprise to no one. Unless of course you're a writer for The Society Pages, a hammer to all the not-quite-but-almost nails of the world.

As I'm writing this, my Twitter stream is blowing up not with people complaining about other people on Twitter, but about Twitter itself. Why? Because these people, of whom I am one, helped build Twitter, and now Twitter has outgrown us and failed to provide the tools needed to interact with it in a meaningful way.

As for Svbtle, you may have reservations about its personality as a brand, but how is it different than any collection of writers be it old-fashioned publications or any of thousands of online magazines? It's specifically not an open community because it's not meant as an open community, and that is its defining quality. There is room for curation as much as there is room for mosh pits. You can point to Medium and say that they have something interesting going on with their liking system and seemingly open categories, but isn't it a little misguiding to post about the exclusion of people on a platform which at the moment just as exclusive as Svbtle? Or are you saying that you can stop a revolution from a country club?

Anil: But there’s an aesthetic and editorial sensibility that permeates any defined online community that is almost always inherited from its earliest dominant users, and once it’s established, it’s almost impossible to change.

Both Twitter and Facebook started out fundamentally different than what they are today, as did Tumblr and Flickr and any number of popular services, which is why we're having this discussion at all. Size dilutes. You can't state on the one hand that communities stay true to their seed, and then on the other that there's a 'white flight' because they don't. Which is it?

Beyond that, it's a massive fallacy that communities should be everything to everyone. The very word itself, community, stems from common, as in shared, as in 'this is what we share'. If you include everyone in your 'bottled ships club', it's unlikely to be about bottled ships for much longer, which really sucks if you just like to hang out and talk about how awesome bottled ships are and how best to make them.