In the prototypic small town or village, community was geographically defined with many social classes and groups included within a single community. While even the smallest towns had social divisions, with the accompanying interdictions against fraternizing with "outsiders", these divisions were always challenged by the ample opportunity for contact across the groups in the marketplace and public ways.

As communities grew in size, it became more feasible for communities to subdivide -- most frequently along economic, ethnic, and religious lines. As transportation services improved, the creation of suburbs allowed people to create geographic communities of highly homogeneous character.

While suburbs achieve great uniformity, they remain geographically defined. The Internet erases this geographic limitation, allowing virtual communities of incredible specificity, whose members may be scattered across the world.

Some examples:

• AOL chats for every hobby and interest group
• My sister breeds daschunds. Through the chats she has developed close friendships with many enthusiasts for this breed. Traveling to a Maryland dog show, she recently visited with several of her online friends.
  
  
• USENET Newsgroups for specialized problems
• A Skidmore student with suicidal depression participates in a self-help group based on the alt.suicide newsgroups. Through the discussions they watch out for each other and share thoughts on the challenges of resisting the suicidal impulses.

Virtual communities also imply a level or segregation that goes far beyond what is possible geographically. What happens when you limit your interactions to those with nearly identical interests and beliefs? What are the risks associated when our interests become too narrow? Will virtual communities foster the narrow-mindedness that permits culturally different groups to enact severe discrimination and even genocide on their immediate neighbors!

The emergence of online hate groups is an example of the dark side of virtual communities. These virtual communities can be particularly dangerous when combined with the impersonality of virtual connections. It is much easier to advocate violence against an abstract group than the visible neighbor next door. Indeed, social isolation is one of the first steps toward racial and ethnic hatred or genocide.

The ephemeral character of virtual communities is fundamentally different from that of physical communities. Individuals can disconnect from a virtual community at the slightest whim -- or even if they find the discussion no longer personally fulfilling. In physical communities people cannot readily disengage, thereby forcing people to work through their differences and disagreements. Will this ephemeral character lead to shallower relationships?

Shapiro's book "The Control Revolution" offers a broader discussion of the benefits and risks of virtual communities.