Hey, I gave this a watch but their use of the word 'local' doesn't match mine in this case. When I use the word local, I'm referring to a geographic area, or at least a server that represents a geographic area. It looks like when local-first talk about local, they're referring to interaction on a device. It would be nice to be able to have habitat not require an internet connection to queue a post, this is a great idea and I'll look into that, but their point on "it should still work on device if the remote server is down (or even disappears forever)" I don't believe is possible when we're building a community platform. Or, at least, if such a thing is possible, I wouldn't know where to begin. I appreciate the heads-up though, I love that such a group exists.
In any case, you’re definitely right to focus on your specific use case first without trying to fit it into any specific paradigm. I’m excited to follow Habitat’s progress!
This is an amazing idea. I've toyed with the idea of creating both subject specific and geographic specific groups for my interests but it's a clunky solution. For example, I like birdwatching, but I want to know what people are seeing around me, not on a continent away, so being able to join a centralized 'birding' group then narrow it down geographically would solve the problem of having to create potentially hundreds of sub groups. Same for politics, news, restaurants, etc.
Thanks for this! 😃 I have been going back and forth on the idea of providing the end user with the ability to create their own categories. I was wondering whether it would be better to have an Other type category which the admin can react to and create categories as needed, but your post has pushed me back to the idea of allowing category creation. I think if I do implement that, I'll have a switch for it, so that the instance admin can choose.
Yes, I would use this a lot! That's an incredibly exciting idea and something that I think is desperately needed for the fediverse. I hate to say it, but I think this is something that other (currently more popular) platforms still have an advantage over.
As someone that travels for work, it's not always easy for me to learn where and what my resources are. I could see a platform like this being able to help out immensely.
Buying/selling/donating groups are something that immediately comes to mind too.
It's such a joy to read this kind of feedback, and to know that not only would it be enjoyable to have such a platform, but you can foresee that it would be useful. I think I might ask some developers who have experience with building decentralised platforms to see if they think there would be technical issues.
I spent several weeks thinking about this exact idea.
Federation is cool. You could set up each instance to only federate with instances for nearby towns and cities. Maybe a “2 district” radius. Users would only see content for their local communities. Local news stays local. Local government could officially participate if they wish. People you talk to are actually neighbors you might see in person. Larger regions like counties, states, provinces, or even countries, could also have dedicated instances and federate similarly. I think this is the big appeal and it sounds awesome!
There are a few problems 🙂
First is a little bit of confusion with posting. Let’s say that I see a post about a cool new restaurant in my town. I share it with a friend who lives a few towns away and that’s outside the “federation radius”. I can’t share the post with that friend very easily. Maybe the tools could be enhanced to make this viable?
Second is a matter of privacy. How do you know that new accounts belong to people associated with the geographic location of each instance? If you don’t validate, the system will certainly be abused. If you do validate, then users need to supply some real info! Home address, ID, etc. that’s a big deal for users and instance admins.
Third. What happens if you move? Do you have to abandon your old account and start over? Again, the system itself can be developed further to solve this. But that’ll take time and money.
Next is the operating costs. You would need to build thousands of instances to build this system up. And each one would have to be tied to a geographic region. You need new features to handle signups this way. You have the simple cost of running these servers. You probably need a lot of staff to manage it all. This is an expensive platform for one party to run. Alternatively…
It doesn’t have to be one party running this entire system. That’s the point of the Fediverse, right? The operational costs go way down if anyone can run their own instance. But how do you enforce the rules of federating with instances for geographically nearby locations? I don’t see a reasonable way to solve this one.
I could probably keep listing issues. But these are the big ones IMO. If you solve these, the system is viable and could be amazing.
Hey, it's good to know that others have been considering this sort of thing.
My article does detail solutions to some of the issues you've raised here, but I'll go over them each just to see where our visions differ:
I can’t share the post with that friend very easily
All posts will have a publicly available URL. I don't think it would be good to create closed communities, only solutions that would show the user local posts.
If you don’t validate, the system will certainly be abused
I don't believe we should validate that people actually live in the community. I think administration of blocking malicious users should work just like Lemmy, but I don't think the potential for abuse is quite as high, given that the reward for a spammer would be to spam to such a small amount of people. There's less work in spamming to a larger group by choosing just about any other type of community.
Do you have to abandon your old account and start over?
You don't, just like Lemmy and Mastodon, your account on one instance could be used to interact with other instances. The Connecting Instances section of the article details how this could work from a technical point.
It doesn’t have to be one party running this entire system. That’s the point of the Fediverse, right
Distributed cost and administration is exactly how I see it. I would only care to host my local instance.
I'm not against but I think uptake will be difficult because, depending on your starting region you may be competing with an established product and because there is a heavy venn overlap between people who care about decentralization and those who care about privacy and wouldn't want an app tracking and to some degree giving away their location.
(Clarity Edit: I have a cold, my ending was guessable , but technically gibberish.)
That would be one of the ways that I'd use the home functionality, but the categorisation would allow for more niche subjects than just generic local conversation, such as treasure hunting games or historical photos etc. Also, the nearby feature would make it more of a utility for travelling and sightseeing.
I think you're right in that uptake would be a challenge, but I personally think that would primarily be due to the paradox of not joining a community because it's empty. It's something that I mention in the article. I don't know if it's something that can be overcome, but I wouldn't mind giving it a go.
carlnewton.github.io
Hot