Clubhouse is the big stinker that nobody wants to talk about
I joined CH in January, and I initially felt the same sense of excitement I felt when I first joined Twitter in early 2008 and started connecting with new, likeminded people.But that excitement died off within about two weeks, once I realised how little really interesting discussion there was. There were some highlights, and I still dip in now and again when a compelling name pops up, but it's mostly pretty uninspiring.I was listening to the Good Time Show last week with CH co-founder Paul Davison talking about opening up to all comers, and I heard him make the claim that Clubhouse has bigger potential than text-based social platforms, because talking has less friction than writing, therefore more people will use a talk-based app. I've heard others make this claim before, and it's always struck me as a deeply flawed thesis.Sure, most people are comfortable spending plenty of time chatting with one person or a small group of trusted people, but far fewer people are comfortable talking in a large group of strangers.The confidence threshold is much much lower for text and photo-based platforms, as you have time to craft your content and you can always (where supported) edit or just delete post if you have second thoughts.But public talk-based platforms trigger all the same fear-reactions that live public speaking triggers, so far fewer people are comfortable doing it, and hence we get exactly what we see – a platform dominated by a relatively small number of outlier extraverts/confident speakers.I keep thinking: Andreessen Horowitz aren't stupid investors, they must have thought of this and must be working with the founders to develop ways to keep growing user numbers and engagement. But I'm yet to see any signs this is the case, and more and more it feels like everyone has bought into this flawed thesis, and that we're witnessing a giant naked emperor scenario.