Why see competitors where partnerships could be possible? Drawing on my experience with a computer shop, I share my distinction between a clan, a tribe, a community and an audience, followed by my reflections on mutual support, network marketing, team spirit and the role of artificial intelligence.
So, what are the differences between clans, tribes and communities? And why do we so often see competitors where we could find partners, mutual support and knowledge to share?
This question interests me in relationship marketing, in IT, in working life and in personal relationships. We already encounter enough obstacles without systematically putting more in one another’s way. Yet sometimes, simply working in the same field is enough to shut down the conversation.
I will start with my understanding of these words, describe an experience with a computer shop, then broaden the discussion to sport, responsibilities and artificial intelligence. My central idea is simple: before deciding that someone is a competitor, let us look at what we could offer one another.
Clans, tribes and communities: my personal distinction
First, let me make it clear that I am offering a personal interpretation of certain behaviours. These words have several uses. I am not claiming to establish a universal classification of social groups, or to say that everyone who uses the word “clan” behaves in the same way.
The clan: when belonging means closing ranks
When I talk about a clan in this discussion, I am mainly thinking of a closed group with a single path to follow. You belong to the group as long as you obey its rules; if you stray from them, you risk exclusion. The problem arises when this logic prevents discussion or turns outsiders into opponents.
Having shared rules is understandable. But if they serve to reject every other way of thinking, we deprive ourselves of a great deal. The world is vast, knowledge circulates and there are many opportunities to meet others. Why willingly shut ourselves into a single outlook?
It is this closed-mindedness that I criticise, along with the aggressive communication it can lead to. A closed clan where you have to reject others to prove your loyalty to your own: no, thank you.
The tribe: shared values and genuine care
As I use the word, a tribe brings different people together around shared values. I associate it more with closeness, mutual support and the opportunity to look out for one another.
We hear about “building your tribe online”. All right, but then who looks after it? It does not happen overnight. It takes time, a presence and the ability to support the people who join us.
To me, size matters less than that ability. If nobody knows anybody and members can no longer genuinely interact, we are moving away from what I call a tribe. I am not setting a maximum number: I am talking about relationships we can still maintain.
The community: a broader scale, but still an exchange
A community can be small or much larger, even becoming part of a movement. In the latter case, resources, organisation and networking play a greater role. Growing also means knowing how to share the work of supporting members.
What matters to me is that members can talk, get to know one another, share knowledge and help each other. That can include exchanges of services, bartering or paid work. I do not automatically see community and economic activity as opposites.
On the other hand, when only those in charge remain visible and members can no longer get an answer, I wonder who really benefits from the group. If you have to pay to join, but there is then neither follow-up nor interaction, the word “community” deserves to be questioned.
An audience is not, in itself, a community
Take a television presenter. They may know trends relating to their viewers, but they do not personally know everyone sitting in front of a screen. They cannot give individual support to their entire audience.
I see the same distinction online. You can build visibility, attract followers, then present some of those people with offers, programmes or services. There is a monetisation logic at work. But the number of people watching does not, on its own, tell us what relationships exist between them.
So, to me, talking about a community implies more than broadcasting a message. There has to be room for responses, exchange and shared learning. Otherwise, we mainly risk building an audience to sell something to, even if the presentation uses very warm language.
I am particularly critical when marketing makes an ineffective service look wonderful. Not every gap between promise and reality amounts to fraud in the legal sense. That said, a promise of support that is not reflected in practice remains a real problem.
The computer shop that saw me as a competitor
I am deliberately choosing an example from my own experience. I went to a computer shop near where I live. I explained to the person in charge that I had good IT knowledge and that artificial intelligence was enabling me to consider offering more effective services.
He sold hardware, among other things. For my part, I thought I could share methods to save him time and help him use certain AI tools in his work, on both new and older computers. As I saw it, there were things we could explore together.
I was also considering a partnership: he could have referred customers to me for certain services, with an agreed commission between our businesses. This was not a partnership already in place, but a possibility I wanted to discuss.
His answer, as I recount it, was that we were competitors because we were both IT professionals.
I find that reasoning absurd. Working in the same field does not automatically mean offering the same thing, in the same way, to the same people. We can have different knowledge and complementary skills within the same field.
I do not know all his reasons for refusing, and he was free not to work with me. What I criticise is the shortcut of closing down the discussion solely on the basis of a professional label.
Imagine what happens if everyone thinks that way: as soon as someone knows a little about our field, they become a threat? How can we share methods, make progress together or develop a complementary service under those conditions?
In practice, start by comparing skills
Before talking about competition, I would rather we asked: what can each of us do? What knowledge could we exchange? Which services would complement one another? And under what conditions could it work for each of us?
That does not guarantee an agreement will be possible. But at least we are examining the reality. To me, that is already a much more open way to approach a professional encounter.
Using the same tools does not make us identical
The same goes for artificial intelligence. I use various OpenAI tools and consider myself reasonably proficient in some of their uses. That does not make me a competitor of everyone who uses those tools.
And having a ChatGPT account is not enough, in my view, to call yourself an AI specialist. Knowing how to use a tool, understanding its possibilities and practising a specialist profession are not quite the same thing. Experience, knowledge and the working context matter.
Even in IT, talking about Mac, Windows, Linux or ChromeOS is not enough to define someone’s needs. Uses differ. The internet plays a large part in mine, but a computer can also be used offline: Google documents several offline uses for Chromebooks, which is no small matter.
What interests me about AI is the possibility of learning, communicating better and developing skills. I see it as a way to make sharing knowledge easier. I want users to retain their own judgement and responsibility: having better tools does not remove the need to think about what we are doing.
A community needs IT skills too
I emphasise the value of having people with IT skills around us. Phones, computers, tablets, televisions, connectivity equipment, internet connections: many of us would benefit from being able to ask someone who understands these subjects for advice.
Even with my knowledge, I would like to find opportunities locally to exchange knowledge and obtain affordable services for my setup. I do not know of any that interest me. Nobody should feel ashamed of asking for expertise they do not have.
The firewall: prevention, not a miracle solution
A firewall filters network communications, including those over an internet connection, according to rules. It can be software or a dedicated piece of equipment. Adding a device is not enough to make a setup invulnerable, however: its configuration and maintenance matter too.
I mention IPCop as an example of a computer being used as a firewall. That reference needs updating: the project is listed as discontinued. I therefore cite it to explain the idea, not to recommend installing it today.
What I want to convey is that precautions can be adapted to each person’s needs. Not everyone needs an additional server at home. Understanding your equipment and applying its security updates, however, is useful. The aim is to reduce risks without promising absolute protection, a challenge similar to achieving perfection.
I also mention so-called “man-in-the-middle” attacks: an intermediary intercepts or alters data between two communicating parties. NIST describes this mechanism. My image of a spy and impersonator intervening on a telephone line, imitating each speaker’s voice when talking to the other, or interfering so as always to favour a desired outcome, is meant to make it understandable.
To return to the subject, I would rather this knowledge were used to reassure and support people. Fake profiles, deception and risks can feed distrust. I think an environment that is better understood and better protected would make some encounters easier, without being the sole explanation for all our relationship difficulties.
On my blog, I am also looking for a response
We are told that the internet lets us communicate with people on the other side of the world. Very good. But in my experience, sales approaches are sometimes easier to come by than a genuine conversation.
Someone who tells me they have read an article, asks a question or disagrees interests me. Even “I didn’t like your article”, with an explanation, would already be a response. At least we could discuss it!
I have spent months developing my blog with AI’s help, to structure hours of live broadcasts in French. In my experience, preparing an article can take three to five hours. It is work, even when you use modern tools to move forward.
I present this blog as a space for sharing knowledge, not an immediate sales funnel. There is also the option of contributing to this blog in exchange for an affordable IT maintenance service. My aim is to keep this work alive. Not to prepare my departure for a tax haven, all right?
That is why I distinguish visibility from relationships. Getting visits is one thing. Getting to know readers, receiving their feedback and exchanging knowledge is another. It is that second dimension I would like to develop.
Network marketing: mutual support does not remove the need for caution
To me, teams within the same network should try to help one another rather than undermine each other. If everyone works in the same company, why turn differences in position or experience into permanent rivalries?
I have spoken on social media with people who felt they had experienced changes in rank, lost earnings or abuse in this kind of activity. I am reporting their accounts: I have not established the facts legally or verified their case files. Nevertheless, that is enough to reinforce my conviction that you should find out more before committing yourself. Sometimes, however, only experience provides answers.
We also need to distinguish between network marketing models. In France, the DGCCRF distinguishes legal multilevel selling from prohibited pyramid schemes, in which earnings come mainly from recruiting new members rather than genuine sales. The language of community does not remove the need to examine how this works.
In practice, understand your commitments and your options for redress
Before joining a network, I think it is necessary to understand what you pay, how you are paid, what rules govern positions and whom you can turn to if there is a disagreement. An attractive presentation is no substitute for understandable terms.
If you run into difficulty, legal expenses insurance can help, but it does not guarantee a low-cost lawyer in every case or full reimbursement. Service Public points out that the areas covered, exclusions, limits and any waiting periods depend on the policy. You should therefore not assume that a business dispute or an already known dispute is covered.
AI can help prepare questions or organise the information you want to give a lawyer. But I would not give it the final say on a legal situation. The details must be checked against the actual case; no tool guarantees that you will win.
I remain firm on the underlying point: belonging to a group does not mean accepting abuse. The internal rules of a clan, a tribe or a community are not permission to circumvent the law or take justice into your own hands. Mutual support should also help us understand our rights better.
Sport: making progress is not just about finishing first
Let us take a sporting competition. Are the only people who get something out of it those who win a medal? To me, no. There is the pride of having taken part, the effort made, an improved time, physical progress.
In an individual race, you can try to push yourself further without wanting to crush everyone else. In team sports, success also depends on how you play together. Football, rugby and doubles tennis make this dimension very visible.
And behind someone receiving an award, there may be coaches, loved ones, years of preparation and substantial resources. I think it is a shame to look only at the final result and forget everything that made it possible.
Not everyone has the same resources or opportunities to practise. But I like this idea: trying to improve at your own level already has value. You do not need to come first to have learnt something or made an effort you are proud of.
It is this beauty of sport that I apply to relationships between people. You can want to improve your results while helping others. A community where everyone progresses seems more interesting to me than a group organised entirely around one person’s victory.
Those in charge and leaders: experience before titles
I think we often look for people who can guide us in things we do not know or have not mastered. That explains, in my view, the place occupied by those in charge and by guides.
Some movements describe their organisation as leaderless. I am not going to impose a single leader on them. But I remain convinced that we need to be able to identify how responsibilities are being fulfilled and whom to approach when a problem arises.
Becoming a guide requires learning and experience, in my view. Successes, but also mistakes from which lessons have been learnt. You cannot seriously pass on experience you have not acquired.
Presenting yourself as an experienced leader without real experience is, to me, deceiving people. A title, visibility and polished words are not enough. I expect someone who wants to support others to know what they are talking about and to recognise the limits of their knowledge.
Artificial intelligence can speed up access to information and help us communicate. That possibility interests me a great deal. But I do not confuse access to an explanation with having lived through something, put it into practice and taken responsibility.
Preparing to make progress and passing on what we learn
I attach great importance to preparation. Finding out more, learning, understanding risks, choosing your relationships and working regularly: to me, these matter far more than a promise of immediate success.
Some projects take years to build, sometimes ten or twenty years. I am not presenting those timescales as an absolute rule. Yet that is where the real difficulty lies. I want to remind us that progress may require daily effort, adjustments and patience. Wanting everything immediately also leaves us vulnerable to messages that promise shortcuts.
To sum up, I am looking for relationships where we can talk, share knowledge, recognise other people’s skills and protect ourselves from abuse. Whether we call it a clan, a tribe or a community, what interests me is how we live together.
I imagine this progress as a mountain of obstacles. We learn as we go, encounter difficulties and make an effort. Then, once we have climbed higher, we take time to look at the view. And we can go on to the next village to pass on what the climb has taught us.
This is also how I see the balance between life online and offline, with AI’s help when it is useful. Tools can make the journey easier; encounters, the time we give and our decisions remain the most important things. Respecting the law and preparing our projects does not guarantee success, but to me these are foundations we must stick to.
So I remain convinced that systematically seeing competition where cooperation would be possible is an enormous mistake. We have enough mountains to climb without refusing, on principle, to give one another a helping hand.
And you: have you ever been seen as a competitor when you were simply suggesting working together? Or have you found genuine mutual support in a group that helped you move forward?
José DUTIAN