I'm not *sure* I understand the question, but it seems to be "would you join another site like this one but which required you to be vetted or vouched for by an existing member, thus keeping its membership a smaller, more closed circle." And if that's the question I'd say no; why bother when I'm already on a site like this one (namely, this one)
The specific difference in your hypothetical alternative website is that a person couldn't get in unless they know somebody, and there's two faults with that approach.
One fault is inherent to the vast social-networking power of the modern internet; just about anybody can-- with a little time and acumen-- navigate their way into a position of 'knowing somebody.' I mean if I went to a club in Hollywood and the bouncer said "you gotta' have somebody famous on your facebook friends list to get in," I've actually got an actor (who I've never met) and a model (who I went to university with) on mine. And I'm nobody. But thanks to the network of tubes, to a third party observer I appear to be friends with them. So the whole exclusiveness of your proposal breaks down in the face of what the internet is and does; it's the great connector, connecting ignorant people with information they might never otherwise acquire, and connecting ordinary people with other people they might never otherwise meet. It erodes social strata.
The other fault is that in the unlikely event such a vetting process did succeed at keeping anybody out, the people excluded probably wouldn't deserve
to be so ostracised. It would be like a case of the new kid in high school; he might be a wonderful person, but he doesn't know anybody yet, so.. uh.. fuck 'im. So nobody talks to him because "we don't know that guy," which-- interestingly enough-- prevents anyone from getting to know him, perpetuating his outsider status. When you require someone to be vouched for, you aren't necessarily keeping out bad or untrustworthy people and surrounding yourself with good and trustworthy people. Because there are lots of good people who just don't know anybody, and there are *lots* of vicious unscrupulous motherfuckers who excel at ingratiating themselves to others and appearing to be a friend to your face while they're anything but. So a working
regime of "you gotta know somebody to get in" is not only oppressive, but it's dishonest. That's the kind of "elite clique"/popularity cult that I would
join, purely for the sake of subverting it; if they let me in I'd start vouching for random homeless people and pyromaniacs just to drag the snobs kicking and screaming into the muck of reality.
I'm not against 'elitism' per se; lord knows I'm an unapologetic intellectual elitist (regardless of whether or not I'd get into MENSA myself) because I think that people who've invested in knowledge should be taken more seriously than average when a problem needs solving. I'm all for recognising those who strive to make some exceptional contribution to society. But elite social
clubs? Reward-level access for exceptional schmoozers and networkers? Y'know who make some of the very best
schmoozers and networkers? Sociopaths. Sociopathy is very conducive to popularity because they're shameless in their exploitation and they have no conscience about lying to your face. And the best defense against them and their deceptions is an open
community without a lot of barriers, where everyone talks to everyone else and people get to know each other and the truth is held in high esteem.
An elite social network just sounds like it would become a space full of self-promoting manipulators, extortionist social-climbers, grandfathered-in snobs, and trust-fund brats whose parents could afford to bribe well-connected people to be their friends. Which would be handy, because if they were all in one place-- like a clubhouse-- then the rest of us would know what building to set on fire during the annual lock-in
Or the quadrennial nomination convention.
Frankly, if we're talking about a more exclusive gay
social site, then it sounds like what you're really pining for is a better-insulated closet. The problem with that, of course, is that in principle it's the same as the problem with living one's life trying to avoid pain: ever-smaller things become painful in proportion to the fear of being hurt. The more one tries to evade discomfort, the less capable they become of actually dealing with it, the more discomfort abounds. And the more one tries to tighten up a social circle to be "only the most trustworthy," the more one invites paranoia, the smaller that circle gets until you're huddled alone in a dark basement with a shotgun an canned foods ranting to yourself about conspiracies against you.
Openness is the answer; a society without openness (or in lieu of openness-- ugh, I'm loathe to say it-- gossip) is a society without shame and without scruples.