Cool pitch! Definitely some overlap with GMS. We should connect to discuss how we might work together or help each other. I wonder if your funding ask is a bit conservative, though. I also know of some online communities that may be interested in testing or implementing Virts. Would you say the ideal community to use this platform would be one that is very dynamic and hard to define, but wants to define the scope of interests they spend the most time on?
Viewing post in Virts (Social Media for Collectives) jam comments
I think all of life, collectives included, are very fluid. sometimes a collective is organized AROUND an idea (“a book club for charlottes web”, “more passive”) and sometimes a collective organizes THE IDEA (a political party or some other ‘producer’ of material (including intellectual material) (“more active”)
I envision this platform allowing both of these types of groups to exist and commingle.
One example that I think of is like you and your group of friends from an irl situation. There’s not really anything *in particular* you may want to chat about, but the “idea” that is being produced by this collective is the friendship itself (maybe they’ll name themselves a silly name as a type in the platform)
I imagine a lot of uses will be this type of thing (especially related to content creators or other “more social” realms) which encompasses a ton of types of people, from research to activists to game clans to creator plurs and more.
I agree with the ask being kind of conservative. Originally the numbers were a lot higher but some said it came off as intimidating, so I “changed the scope” to just get the initial MVP. Another funding round will likely be needed as we are moving from MVP to scaling users