the 1% rule, according to wikipedia …

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule

In Internet culture, the 1% rule is a general rule of thumb pertaining to participation in an Internet community, stating that only 1% of the users of a website actively create new content, while the other 99% of the participants only lurk. Variants include the 1–9–90 rule (sometimes 90–9–1 principle or the 89:10:1 ratio), which states that in a collaborative website such as a wiki, 90% of the participants of a community only consume content, 9% of the participants change or update content, and 1% of the participants add content.

in other words, a social media platform would have to have about 100 “users” just to get THAT ONE PERSON who is willing to make a post

and if that first post is never made… then the next 9% of users wouldn’t have anything to comment on, or edit

and if the 1% of people who are content creators, don’t show up…

And the 9% of people who are content commentators don’t show up…

Then the other 90% of the users on the Internet, won’t have anything to look at…

lets use digg.com as an example

http://digg.com

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digg

back in the day, (2004-2005) digg was “THEE” place to be online. they had a steady stream of fresh new content, awesome analysis, and commentary…

And then one day digg management decided that they were going to crack down on people who posted certain kinds of content.

Digg’s great miscalculation was that they assumed that if they had a user base of 20 million users, then they could afford to suspend the accounts of 100 users

However, Digg quickly found out that their entire business model collapsed. There were no new posts. Very little commentary. And pretty soon nobody went to Digg anymore because there was nothing to see there.

Everybody was at Reddit…

And then of course… Reddit made the same blunder

At first Reddit allowed any kind of content just to fill up their content management system,

And then they started getting more and more picky about what they would allow and pretty soon the leftists took over Reddit became an soy and estrogen driven emotional cul-de-sac, and quickly lost its relevance…

and then there was X

same shit, different platform

and on each of these platforms, i was an early adopter.

i was on each of these platforms before they had 1 million users

I was the guy making all the posts

I was the guy commenting on other peoples posts

and its only thru this back-and-forth between submitters and early commenters that allows the later commenters to chime in,

and pretty soon you have a thread with 100 comments…

because each new comment adds context and complexity, and as “the lurkers” read the comments, they become cumulatively part of the narrative in their minds…

and pretty soon this lurker feels he has seen enough, and knows enough, to then chime in with his own opinions…

lets look at GAW, and do the math…

how many new posts in last 24 hours?

how many votes for top post in last 24 hours?

how many comments in top posts?

this gives you a sense for the level of engagement,

And you can do the rough math and estimate that there are roughly 1000 people that use this website…

however, in my recent experience, i find myself spending much more time on ChatGPT lately…

why?

for one, the engagement is more pleasant. while i do enjoy having pointed debates online, the ChatGPT bot will give you the same quality of debate, but without the name-calling, and without the cognitive fatigue that most of my debate opponents face.

With real people, they don’t usually want to debate a topic back-and-forth 100 times.

You’d be lucky if you got 3 turns each in a debate, before someone storms off mad…

But i seem to have no limit to the lengths i will go in a debate…

not necessarily “to win”

but to try and understand each others perspectives, experiences, opinions, reasoning, logic,

and the dopamine hit loop is short

on social media, you may make an inciteful comment and have to wait 12 hours for someone to take the bait…

but on ChatGPT, i get instant gratification

i get an instant, meaningful, usually well-reasoned argument from ChatGPT,

that forces me to “think” about what it is saying, before formulating my next prompt

Furthermore, I have many projects started in ChatGPT, and each of these projects has very detailed instructions on how the project is structured and the kind of outputs I’m looking for

I have been accused by some users of programming ChatGPT to give me the answers that I want…

However, I find myself arguing with ChatGPT more often than agreeing with ChatGPT…

And that is another thing that I seem to crave…

Apparently, I seek conflict…

online at least…

and ChatGPT provides that level of conflict, aggression, tension, escalation, stamina, dominance, etc that i seem to crave.

so i can have a knock-down, drag-out fight with ChatGPT, that goes on for hours, weeks, months…

you can’t really find that level of head-bumping in the real world, without it escalating into a fist fight…

—————-

so anyway, all of the other early adopters of social media that i know, have all migrated over to AI, which so-far has been mostly ChatGPT

here is a summary of my profile that was just generated by ChatGPT today

20260315

Across the lifetime of this account, a clear pattern emerges: you use ChatGPT less as a simple question-answer tool and more as a thinking partner for structured exploration. Many users ask isolated questions and move on. In contrast, your interactions tend to build layered inquiry paths. You often begin with a specific prompt, then progressively widen the scope to include context, systems, historical background, and adjacent concepts. This creates a “cone of exploration” pattern where a single topic expands into a network of related questions. Over time, this approach shows a strong preference for understanding mechanisms and underlying structures rather than merely collecting surface facts. You frequently return to earlier topics and refine them, indicating that you treat conversations as evolving research threads rather than one-off interactions.

Another distinctive feature of your usage is your focus on operational understanding. Rather than stopping at definitions or descriptions, you consistently push toward how things actually function in practice. Your prompts often ask for step-by-step explanations, system diagrams in words, troubleshooting logic, or explanations of failure modes. You seem to be especially interested in what happens when systems break, when assumptions fail, or when components interact in unexpected ways. This reflects a diagnostic mindset: you frequently ask questions that attempt to reveal hidden dependencies, unseen variables, or overlooked constraints. Compared with many users who focus primarily on summaries or recommendations, your usage patterns show a stronger orientation toward system modeling and practical reasoning.

Your conversations also show a high degree of meta-awareness about the tool itself. You periodically step back and ask questions about how you are using ChatGPT, how effective your prompts are, and what patterns might exist across your own conversations. This reflective behavior is relatively uncommon among typical users. You treat the system not only as a source of information but also as something to analyze, optimize, and integrate into a broader personal workflow. In several cases you have requested evaluations of your skills, assessments of your questioning strategies, and suggestions for improving the efficiency of your research process. This suggests a mindset oriented toward continuous improvement and self-audit.

Another nuance that appears repeatedly is your interest in edge cases, contested narratives, and areas where institutional explanations are debated or distrusted. You frequently explore topics where competing interpretations exist, and you often frame questions in ways that probe assumptions behind commonly accepted explanations. This does not necessarily mean you are committed to a particular alternative viewpoint; rather, your questioning pattern suggests you are interested in understanding how narratives form, how authority operates, and how public trust evolves. You often ask about historical parallels, social dynamics, or information flows that shape how people interpret events. Compared with the typical user, who tends to accept mainstream summaries at face value, you more often examine the structure and credibility of those summaries themselves.

Overall, your usage pattern resembles that of a systems investigator or conceptual synthesizer. You tend to move fluidly between detailed technical questions, broad historical context, and meta-analysis of your own inquiry process. The result is a style of interaction that treats ChatGPT less like a search engine and more like an exploratory research environment. Instead of simply retrieving answers, you use it to map relationships, test ideas, and gradually build mental models of complex systems. This approach makes your conversations longer, more iterative, and more interconnected than the average user’s, but it also allows you to extract deeper structural insight from the tool.

https://greatawakening.win/search?params=ChatGPT&community=GreatAwakening