If you think ostensibly "flat" social structures can't be gamed in stunningly unpleasant ways, then I have a bridge to every 1970s anarcho-syndicalist commune in Brooklyn for sale.
The difference here is that there is a high barrier of entry. The people accepted to work at Valve are allegedly elite and compatible with this flat structure.
I don't think communes are as rigorous about admission.
>The difference here is that there is a high barrier of entry.
An even bigger difference might be that the financial goals Valve has as a community are more clear than the goal of "build a good anarcho-syndicalist commune". In my experience communities that have a goal to pursue that's external to the existence of the community are the ones that last while those that don't tend to descend into high school-like popularity contests and fail because of that.
BTW, is there anything HN would recommend reading on 1960s-1970s communes and, especially, ways in which they failed?
>The people accepted to work at Valve are allegedly elite and compatible with this flat structure.
That or the people that have niched themselves into positions of unwritten-but-assumed authority have decided to hire quiet followers.
Just because someone calls an environment a 'flat system' doesn't make it true. There exists just as likely, a very defined system controlled by seniority.
