So, something I was thinking about last evening.

With #NoComradesUnder1k, and the related pushes, we've got a lot of people who are just following as many people as they can find with the hashtag.

I think there will inevitably be some contraction- groups splitting off, possibly along ideological lines as much as (or more than) lines of personal like and dislike.

The question, really, is what degree of shrinkage/consolidation we'll see.

If we see about 10% consolidation- that is, 10% of the mutuals who followed each other through the hashtag end up unfollowing each other- that's almost negligible in its impact.

Otoh, a consolidation rate of 90% would imply that for every 1000 follows, you'll keep 100 of them.

Of course, the actual rate of consolidation will almost certainly fall between these extremes, and end up having a significant- but not colossal- impact on the long-run follow gain from this project.

I do sorta wonder what this implies for a successful community building strategy.

I've been following basically everyone, at least within the allowances of the Twitter guidelines, because I want to cast a wide net and build as many connections as possible.

But perhaps a strategy with more targeted follows- anarchists seeking out anarchists, MLs seeking out MLs, and so on- would create groups with greater cohesion and result in less risk of an eventual contraction.

I obviously don't have any evidence to support either approach as being better, but I think I favor my approach, as it at least offers the possibility of forming bonds between different parts of "the left".

I do understand why folks would take the alternate approach, though.

No real conclusions here, one way or another. This is just me musing.