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.

😀 that's great to hear! Thanks

I hadn't heard of Yikyak, but it looks very similar to my mock-up. Thanks

Yes, it looks like this is a better comparison than Nextdoor in terms of features.

I'll look into that, thanks. If someone has already done the work that'd be amazing!

Hey! Thanks for the feedback! :D Regarding your point on whether or not it could ever take off, I've given this some thought over the last 24 hours, because I have received a lot of similar feedback. Initially it was one of the biggest things preventing me from wanting to actually attempting building it. I've come to the conclusion that if I can foster a community around it in my local area only, that would be a success for me. The nearby functionality would still work at a local level. If it grew from there, that would be even more of a success. I think with any network that's designed to be fragmented like this, there's always going to be places in which it doesn't take off or not enough people adopt it, but that shouldn't really affect whether or not it's a success at the local scale. So I've decided not to let that factor deter me.

I see your point on just using, let's say, an instance of Lemmy for my local town. This is a fair point, the solution might already be out there, but it uses a toolset that's designed for generic conversation, and not conversation around a location -- like, perhaps a specific location that I want to see or place on a map and talk about it. This is the functionality that I'm personally craving.

😃 well, tbf I feel that we have plenty of solutions for finding like-minded people. Social platforms for hobbies etc. We're communicating on one right now, but a local platform would be for communicating with people that might not necessarily be like-minded, but would still have the same interest in mind. The interest of how much parking is, or what the opening hours are, or what this weird statue in the woods is all about. The interest is the place and that alone is what would connect people.

This is a really interesting point regarding road Vs actual distances, and large areas that are thinly populated being considered local. Australia certainly comes to mind. I suppose the right thing to do about the latter would be to give both users and owners control over search and area sizes.

The quiet feed point is my biggest concern to be honest. It worked out for Lemmy and Mastodon, but it took revolts from their privately owned counterparts to get them to the place they are now.

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 like this! This is an interesting and probably an effective idea for addressing the issue of desolate communities. It does introduce a new issue though. Let's say for the sake of argument, I created an instance where I lived, and it engulfed the British isles, and then after some time, a new instance was created in Scotland. The posts that were previously made in my (now England) instance that are geographically located in Scotland would need to be transferred to the Scottish instance, because otherwise, they would never be found using the relevant instance finding technique that I've described. This doesn't sound like a terrible technical issue (though probably not an entirely trivial one given that you don't want to have all of your posts hijacked by a bad actor), but it does sound like a data/privacy issue, in that the users who posted that data have essentially had it transferred to the ownership (and moderation decisions) of somebody else without permission. An interesting thought none the less. I'd prefer the platform to be as simple as possible but if it can't be picked up due to a lack of interest then that would be a design flaw. On the other hand, I suppose it'll be in the interest of each owner to foster their own community.

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.

Hey, thanks the feedback.

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.