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.
Is that a matrix address? I don't know what this is, I'll look into it. Thanks for the feedback. It isn't quite how I envision it but it sounds like a lot of people are in favour of local communities, and it appears we don't have a solution on the fediverse for that yet.
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.
Thanks for this. I like the idea of local libraries being the hub of community connection. If I get a strong impression that people would want this, and if I get the impression that I can do a better job of building such a platform than anyone else willing to do so, I'll be sure to contact my local library. At the moment, I'm still on the fence on both counts, given that I don't believe the idea has yet garnered the attention of anyone who has experience developing for decentralised platforms. I'm hopeful though. It sounds like a fun project, but it would be a shame to get to the end of it without help and nobody actually wants it, or to work away at it and find something I've overlooked will prevent it from happening. I'll keep my ear to the ground for a little while.
Thanks! I'll take all the suggestions I can get! This is interesting, and something I've never really considered for any local project. Is it common for libraries to take an interest in online platforms like this? Which country do you live in by the way? I'm not sure if it's a knowledge gap on my part or just something that libraries in the UK wouldn't get involved with.
Yes, what I'm describing is federating with all instances, unless of course, you decide to block one. Using the method I've described, there would be only one hop necessary from your local to the instance relevant to your location. I can't picture the benefit of a solution in which you would only federate with local instances, given that the downside would be that you would be restricted to posting in your own location. Let me know if I'm missing something. I appreciate all of this feedback.
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.
fear that every country might have it's own unique problems, but I'll look into postcodes, thanks.