[Cavernio]

I found that a hard read like there was no thesis, or the thesis was poorly defined. A lot of stuff that somehow didn't say much.
I guess I'm thinking about it a lot though, even though I'm not sure I liked the article.

-That groups need self-moderation has become standard
-There are standard forms of forums and groups now. FFR follows it. It's kinda neat that some people have gotten upset about the structure of FFR just recently, (the only time I've ever heard about people getting upset about the form of the forums at all, really.) Like iironiic who is upset about AMAs, the move of the birthday threads too.
-Early on in the article it says that what it's talking about are essentially tennets of any group. It's never mentioned explicitly that we're only looking at groups that are 100% voluntary.
-Author said that when a group begins there might be those few moments of unexpectedness. I think I could make that comparison to ANY relationship, probably most notably in romantic relationships. Novel things create novel experiences.
-Not completely on-board that technical issues must be tied into the social ones.
-The idea that handles or identity is crucial, aren't there massively popular social websites that exist right now that are specifically still anonymous? It seems to me that the examples he's pulled his tennets from weren't representative of all the possibilities for websites, probably because he assumed we were farther along in the evolution of the internet than we actually were.
-Twitter seems to defy the size limit he mentions. Probably due to the mandatory short nature of the amount of information passed.

Overall, his ideas make sense for the majority of groups. However, it is obvious that now, only 10 years later, there are exceptions to his rules.